<unnamed>

Public Key

npub12wy7cgfuvkfp40c0xvgfyyfcr40a3mqklk0t2ucq5qqeewdapjuqwshp94

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs98z0vyy7xtys6hu8nxyyjzyup6h7cast0m844wvq2qqvuhx7sewqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dscxkdpx

Publishing to

relay.nostr.net

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Last Notes

2023-06-07 17:42:51 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-10-06
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
In any case this is basically the purpose of version tracking software
such as Git or CVS or any other. It would not be hard to figure out who
had done what. I see you're splitting hairs over nothing as usual,
though, Russ, so I'll leave you to it.
phm
Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Maybe you are confused with a compilation notice that would say "All Content Copyright and other rights reserved by its Respective Owners" or something similar. That is not the same thing as claiming ownership using the "c" inside the circle. > > There is also a difference between claiming a copyright for
individual works as part of a compilation as opposed to claiming a
copyright on the compilation itself (which is what the current notice
is). > > Russ > > > On 10/6/2015 1:08 AM, Milly Bitcoin wrote: >>> The
copyright notice refers to the fact that each contributor owns >>>
copyright >>> to his own contributions. There is no legal group that
owns copyright >>> to the >>> entirety of the code. >>> >> >> No, that
is not what such a notice means. The part after the "c" in the >>
circle is the legal owner. If the legal owners are not properly >>
identified then the notice is not valid. >> >> --- >> From Nolo: >> >>
What is a valid copyright notice? >> >> A copyright notice should
contain: >> •the word "copyright" >> •a "c" in a circle (©) >> •the date
of publication, and >> •the name of either the author or the owner of
all the copyright rights >> in the published work. >> >> For example,
the correct copyright for the fourth edition of The >> Copyright
Handbook, by Stephen Fishman (Nolo), is Copyright © 1998 by >> Stephen
Fishman. >> >> --- >> from USPTO: >> >> Use of the notice informs the
public that a work is protected by >> copyright, identifies the
copyright owner, and shows the year of first >> publication. >> --- >>
>> Russ >> > > > _______________________________________________ >
bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org >
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=psJx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2023-06-07 17:40:32 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-19
📝 Original message:Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Governments find it hard to ban things that are wildly popular with
> their voters. This is the Uber approach: grow fast, annoy governments,
> but be popular enough that banning you is politically risky.
Governments do not find it hard to ban things that threaten their
authority, least of all their authority to control money, and they also
do not find it hard to ban things which are popular. I'm sure the
millions of people with felony drug charges for the possession of
marijuana, a plant, understand this better than you appear to. Also, in
the US, despite overwhelming resistance on a broad scale, legislation
continues to be presented which would violate the 2nd amendment right to
keep and bear arms.
Bitcoin does not enjoy nearly the popularity that marijuana and guns do,
and likely never may. But even if it did, the government can be relied
on to outlaw it once it understands the true extent to which Bitcoin can
undermine its ability to control stores of value. A mining network that
anyone can contribute to would enable Bitcoin to stay alive in spite of
this, much like torrents have enabled people to continue pirating music
regardless of how many websites have been taken down.
>
> If you don't believe that governments can end Bitcoin because of
> decentralisation, then the opposite conclusion is logical: growth can
> be dangerous because stateless money will be inherently opposed by the
> state, therefore if growth == less decentralisation, growth increases
> the risk of state shutdown.
I think there's a difference between natural growth and the kind of
growth that's being proposed by bank-backed start-ups and pro-censorship
entities.
>
> I don't think we have to choose between decentralisation and growth
> actually - computers are just amazingly fast. But that's irrelevant here.
>
> The point is, your disagreement is summed up by your statement:
>
>
> Bitcoin cannot be both decentralized and reliant on being,
> "too important to close". If it can be closed there is
> insufficient decentralization.
>
>
> I believe this statement is wrong because governments can shut down
> Bitcoin at any point regardless of its level of decentralisation. This
> is true because:
>
> * Most governments can easily spend enough money to do a 51% attack,
> especially if they can compel chip fabs to cooperate for free.
> This attack works regardless of how decentralised Bitcoin is.
>
> * Any government can end Bitcoin usage in its territory by jailing
> anyone who advertises acceptance/trading of bitcoins, or prices in
> BTC. Because merchants /must/ advertise in order to alert
> customers that trades in BTC are possible, this is an attack which
> is unsolvable. If ordinary people can find such merchants so can
> government agents.
>
> It may appear that trade cannot be suppressed because merchants can
> all become anonymous too, a la Silk Road. However, if use of Bitcoin
> is banned then it becomes impossible to convert coins into local
> currency as that requires cooperation of banks ..... making it useless
> for even anonymous merchants. An outlaw currency is useless even to
> outlaws.
A ban on Bitcoin would lead to a rise in p2p markets. The government is
an inefficient sinkhole at its very best and it has never successfully
eradicated anything.