reply on: AJ Towns censoring on Delving Bitcoin to cover Bitcoin Core backdoors ? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

1120 sats \ 13 replies \ @anon 27 Feb \ parent \ on: AJ Towns censoring on Delving Bitcoin to cover Bitcoin Core backdoors ? bitcoin

I'm extremely skeptical of your point of view based on you sending a lawyer letter alone. This is a questionable extreme escalation at best and CSW-esque that pushes more conversation offline in privacy at worst. Can you say anything further to convince the general pleb public that this was a reasonable course of action and you had exhausted other options?

350 sats \ 11 replies \ @premitive1 27 Feb

Are you daft? @theariard was the one who RECEIVED a letter from a lawyer. What are you on about, anon?

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 27 Feb

should "I’m not the first one who has sent lawyers letters to another Bitcoin developer to produce a chilling effect." Instead read ? "I’m not the first one who has received lawyers letters to another Bitcoin developer to produce a chilling effect."

10 sats \ 9 replies \ @anon 27 Feb

sincere apologies, if thats the case I misread and had it in reverse

0 sats \ 8 replies \ @anon 27 Feb

You had it right. He did receive a letter from chaincode labs which is a separate case to this one. I only see one threat of action in this discussion and it comes from the OP and can be found in other comments.

276 sats \ 1 reply \ @petertodd 27 Feb

I don't read it that way. If the archives are correct he was accused of making legal threats before making any statement that can be construed as one.

103 sats \ 0 replies \ @theariard OP 1 Mar

Yes, my original post on Delving Bitcoin was to raise awareness on any long-term risk we could have to have design development process happening behind “close-doors” especially related about IP.

When we see how CSW is making claims based on decade-old communications, and some of the very OG developers (e.g Sirius) have publish their own personal archives to bring clarity, I sincerely think we should minimize private technical conversations only for grounded reasons.

10 sats \ 3 replies \ @premitive1 27 Feb

How can you argue it's a separate case to this one when the discussion is about whether or not Bitcoin development is being corrupted by involvement of a corporation who sent a letter from their lawfirm a year prior to the discussion in question. https://github.com/jamesob/delving-bitcoin-archive/blob/master/archive/rendered-topics/2024-02-February/2024-02-22-workgroup-lifecycle-id598.md

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @anon 27 Feb

Is this as simple as at that github link the OP stating, "At the very least, people engaging in such private communication channels should consult lawyers in the main major juridictions, if such communication practice is not specially tainting their responsibilities in case of future FOSS software defect in some way." in a genuine way of trying to say "hey I don't know if this is legally acceptable with this software license maybe we should ask a lawyer" and getting misconstrued as a direct legal threat and all spinning out of control from there? Could most of this just be a misunderstanding that got out of hand? However when I read that it definitely feels to me like a legal threat, but maybe it was just a well intentioned question that wasn't well phrased?

39 sats \ 0 replies \ @theariard OP 3 Mar

"hey I don't know if this is legally acceptable with this software license maybe we should ask a lawyer

I had especially in mind the CSW’s database case, where CSW is making claims based on a sui generis rights recognized by the EU laws.

Whatever we can think of the EU laws legitimacy in this area, seeing how they can be leveraged against the interest of the Bitcoin ecosystem, especially we should be more careful of marking “original work” in critical Bitcoin areas the public domain. Systematically closing the doors to future CSW’s like judicial contests.

160 sats \ 0 replies \ @premitive1 27 Feb

Comes off as more of a warning to potential liability than a threat.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 27 Feb

To make clear is this correct: the proper understanding is the OP received a Cease & Desist Letter in 2017 from Chaincode. Separately also now in 2024 OP is also saying lawyers need to be consulted - but not directly threatening legal action or sending a letter directly from a lawyer? Sorry this is hard to follow. Just trying to get this straight. Not trying to give anyone a hard time.

169 sats \ 0 replies \ @theariard OP 3 Mar

The year I received a cease-and-desist letter from Chaincode was 2023 (last year) not 2017.

170 sats \ 0 replies \ @theariard OP 3 Mar

For full clarity towards the general pleb public.

I have never sent a lawyer letter to AJ Towns, neither threats him in private to take this course of actions.

However, I did receive lawyer’s letter in the past from some bitcoin core development organization for matters related to development. See one of my post above about March 2023 mailing list event. I think I made it very clear it constituted a break of “good faith” communications in the community.

I’ve never receive from them formal excuses for such conduct of actions leading to a "CWS-esque” situation as you said so. Neither invitation to clarify our misunderstanding on the appropriate channels.