Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund

Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund
2022-01-12  0:47 ` René Pickhardt
  
From: jack @ 2022-01-12  0:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev;  alex

To Bitcoin Developers:

The Bitcoin community is currently the subject of multi-front litigation. Litigation and continued threats are having their intended effect; individual defendants have chosen to capitulate in the absence of legal support. Open-source developers, who are often independent, are especially susceptible to legal pressure. In response, we propose a coordinated and formalized response to help defend developers. The Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is a nonprofit entity that aims to minimize legal headaches that discourage software developers from actively developing Bitcoin and related projects such as the Lightning Network, Bitcoin privacy protocols, and the like.

The main purpose of this Fund is to defend developers from lawsuits regarding their activities in the Bitcoin ecosystem, including finding and retaining defense counsel, developing litigation strategy, and paying legal bills. This is a free and voluntary option for developers to take advantage of if they so wish. The Fund will start with a corps of volunteer and part-time lawyers. The board of the Fund will be responsible for determining which lawsuits and defendants it will help defend.

The Fund’s first activities will be to take over coordination of the existing defense of the Tulip Trading lawsuit against certain developers alleging breach of fiduciary duty and provide the source of funding for outside counsel. At this time, the Fund is not seeking to raise additional money for its operations but will do so at the direction of the board if needed for further legal action or to pay for staff.

If you have questions or concerns, you can email info@bitcoindefensefund•org. Will share more information in the near future.

Sincerely,
Jack Dorsey, Alex Morcos, and Martin White
(Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund Board)


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-01-12  0:13 jack

  2022-01-12  1:42   ` Christopher Allen
  2022-01-13 19:25   ` Alex Morcos
  
From: René Pickhardt @ 2022-01-12  0:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: jack, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion;  alex

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 773 bytes --]

jack via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> schrieb am
Mi., 12. Jan. 2022, 01:35:

> To Bitcoin Developers:
>
> Open-source developers, who are often independent, are especially
> susceptible to legal pressure.


Will the fund eventually also help to educate developers about the risks
they are facing and which measures can be taken to reduce such risks so
that legal pressure might not even arise in the first place?

The main purpose of this Fund is to defend developers from lawsuits
> regarding their activities in the Bitcoin ecosystem, including finding and
> retaining defense counsel, developing litigation strategy, and paying legal
> bills. This is a free and voluntary option for developers to take advantage
> of if they so wish.


Thank you!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1349 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-01-12  0:47 ` René Pickhardt

  2022-01-13 19:25   ` Alex Morcos
  
From: Christopher Allen @ 2022-01-12  1:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion, René Pickhardt;  alex

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 666 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 5:02 PM René Pickhardt via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Will the fund eventually also help to educate developers about the risks
> they are facing and which measures can be taken to reduce such risks so
> that legal pressure might not even arise in the first place?
>

We (Blockchain Commons) have also started a project to document
best-practices of pseudonymous development. A work-in-progress but an
important part of our 2022 roadmap. Led by Namcios & myself, but we welcome
issues, review & contributions!

https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/Pseudonymity-Guide

— Christopher Allen

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1422 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
From: SatoshiSingh @ 2022-01-12  9:59 UTC ( / )
  To: bitcoin-dev;  info



> The main purpose of this Fund is to defend developers from lawsuits regarding their activities in the Bitcoin ecosystem, including finding and retaining defense counsel, developing litigation strategy, and paying legal bills.

Here in India we have the Internet Freedom Foundation that does something similar but for digital freedom and privacy. They've been supportive to bitcoin and it would be cool if we can include them in this.

https://internetfreedom.in/

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com/) Secure Email.
2022-01-13 18:20 ` jack
  2022-01-13 18:28 ` Steve Lee
  
From: Prayank @ 2022-01-13 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: jack;  Bitcoin Dev, info

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1632 bytes --]

Hi Jack,


> The main purpose of this Fund is to defend developers from lawsuits regarding their activities in the Bitcoin ecosystem, including finding and retaining defense counsel, developing litigation strategy, and paying legal bills. This is a free and voluntary option for developers to take advantage of if they so wish. The Fund will start with a corps of volunteer and part-time lawyers. The board of the Fund will be responsible for determining which lawsuits and defendants it will help defend.

Thanks for helping the developers in legal issues. Appreciate your efforts and I understand your intentions are to help Bitcoin in every possible way.


Positives that I see in this initiative:

1.Developers don't need to worry about rich scammers and can focus on development.

2.Financial help for developers as legal issues can end up in wasting lot of time and money.

3.People who have misused courts to affect bitcoin developers will get better response that they deserve.


I had few suggestions and feel free to ignore them if they do not make sense:

1.Name of this fund could be anything and 'The Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund' can be confusing or misleading for newbies. There is nothing official in Bitcoin however people believe things written in news articles and some of them might consider it as an official bitcoin legal fund.

2.It would be better if people involved in such important funds do not comment/influence soft fork related discussions. Example: Alex Morcos had some opinions about activation mechanism during Taproot soft fork IIRC.



-- 
Prayank

A3B1 E430 2298 178F

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2412 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-01-13 10:13 Prayank

  2022-01-14 13:21   ` Aymeric Vitte
  2022-01-21 14:36   ` Zac Greenwood
  2022-01-13 18:28 ` Steve Lee
  
From: jack @ 2022-01-13 18:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Prayank;  Bitcoin Dev, info

Hi Prayank,

> On 13 Jan 2022, at 10:13, Prayank <prayank@tutanota•de> wrote:
> I had few suggestions and feel free to ignore them if they do not make sense:
> 
> 1.Name of this fund could be anything and 'The Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund' can be confusing or misleading for newbies. There is nothing official in Bitcoin however people believe things written in news articles and some of them might consider it as an official bitcoin legal fund.

Excellent point. Will come up with a better name.

> 2.It would be better if people involved in such important funds do not comment/influence soft fork related discussions. Example: Alex Morcos had some opinions about activation mechanism during Taproot soft fork IIRC.

Yes. Will think through this and board operating principles we can share publicly, which would probably include criteria for how cases are chosen, to protect against this board and fund influencing direction.

Open to ideas and suggestions on all.

jack

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-01-13 10:13 Prayank
  2022-01-13 18:20 ` jack

  2022-01-13 18:54   ` Alex Schoof
  2022-01-13 19:05   ` Jeremy
  
From: Steve Lee @ 2022-01-13 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Prayank, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion;  info

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2497 bytes --]

I think the word "The" is important. The title of the email and the name of
the fund is Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund. It is "a" legal defense fund; not
THE Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund. There is room for other funds and
strategies and anyone is welcome to create alternatives.

I also don't see why Alex or anyone should be denied the opportunity to
comment on future soft forks or anything about bitcoin. Alex should have no
more or less right to participate and his comments should be judged on
their merit, just like yours and mine.

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:37 AM Prayank via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hi Jack,
>
>
> > The main purpose of this Fund is to defend developers from lawsuits
> regarding their activities in the Bitcoin ecosystem, including finding and
> retaining defense counsel, developing litigation strategy, and paying legal
> bills. This is a free and voluntary option for developers to take advantage
> of if they so wish. The Fund will start with a corps of volunteer and
> part-time lawyers. The board of the Fund will be responsible for
> determining which lawsuits and defendants it will help defend.
>
> Thanks for helping the developers in legal issues. Appreciate your efforts
> and I understand your intentions are to help Bitcoin in every possible way.
>
>
> Positives that I see in this initiative:
>
> 1.Developers don't need to worry about rich scammers and can focus on
> development.
>
> 2.Financial help for developers as legal issues can end up in wasting lot
> of time and money.
>
> 3.People who have misused courts to affect bitcoin developers will get
> better response that they deserve.
>
>
> I had few suggestions and feel free to ignore them if they do not make
> sense:
>
> 1.Name of this fund could be anything and 'The Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund'
> can be confusing or misleading for newbies. There is nothing official in
> Bitcoin however people believe things written in news articles and some of
> them might consider it as an official bitcoin legal fund.
>
> 2.It would be better if people involved in such important funds do not
> comment/influence soft fork related discussions. Example: Alex Morcos had
> some opinions about activation mechanism during Taproot soft fork IIRC.
>
>
>
> --
> Prayank
>
> A3B1 E430 2298 178F
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3687 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-01-13 18:28 ` Steve Lee

  2022-01-13 19:28     ` Steve Lee
  2022-01-13 19:05   ` Jeremy
  
From: Alex Schoof @ 2022-01-13 18:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Steve Lee, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion;  Prayank, info

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3688 bytes --]

> I also don't see why Alex or anyone should be denied the opportunity to
comment on future soft forks or anything about bitcoin. Alex should have no
more or less right to participate and his comments should be judged on
their merit, just like yours and mine.

I think the concern is something like: "I disagree with a board member of
the defense fund about [insert contentious issue]. If I disagree with them
publicly (especially if there are clear economic implications in that
disagreement), am I putting myself at risk in the future where I won't be
able to get support from the fund because I spoke out against a board
member?" That kind of concern can be mitigated through policy and
governance, but is the kind of thing you want to tackle before it becomes
an issue.

Cheers,

(a different) Alex

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:49 PM Steve Lee via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I think the word "The" is important. The title of the email and the name
> of the fund is Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund. It is "a" legal defense fund;
> not THE Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund. There is room for other funds and
> strategies and anyone is welcome to create alternatives.
>
> I also don't see why Alex or anyone should be denied the opportunity to
> comment on future soft forks or anything about bitcoin. Alex should have no
> more or less right to participate and his comments should be judged on
> their merit, just like yours and mine.
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:37 AM Prayank via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jack,
>>
>>
>> > The main purpose of this Fund is to defend developers from lawsuits
>> regarding their activities in the Bitcoin ecosystem, including finding and
>> retaining defense counsel, developing litigation strategy, and paying legal
>> bills. This is a free and voluntary option for developers to take advantage
>> of if they so wish. The Fund will start with a corps of volunteer and
>> part-time lawyers. The board of the Fund will be responsible for
>> determining which lawsuits and defendants it will help defend.
>>
>> Thanks for helping the developers in legal issues. Appreciate your
>> efforts and I understand your intentions are to help Bitcoin in every
>> possible way.
>>
>>
>> Positives that I see in this initiative:
>>
>> 1.Developers don't need to worry about rich scammers and can focus on
>> development.
>>
>> 2.Financial help for developers as legal issues can end up in wasting lot
>> of time and money.
>>
>> 3.People who have misused courts to affect bitcoin developers will get
>> better response that they deserve.
>>
>>
>> I had few suggestions and feel free to ignore them if they do not make
>> sense:
>>
>> 1.Name of this fund could be anything and 'The Bitcoin Legal Defense
>> Fund' can be confusing or misleading for newbies. There is nothing official
>> in Bitcoin however people believe things written in news articles and some
>> of them might consider it as an official bitcoin legal fund.
>>
>> 2.It would be better if people involved in such important funds do not
>> comment/influence soft fork related discussions. Example: Alex Morcos had
>> some opinions about activation mechanism during Taproot soft fork IIRC.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Prayank
>>
>> A3B1 E430 2298 178F
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>


-- 


Alex Schoof

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5570 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-01-13 18:28 ` Steve Lee
  2022-01-13 18:54   ` Alex Schoof

  2022-01-13 20:50     ` Antoine Riard
  
From: Jeremy @ 2022-01-13 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Steve Lee, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion;  Prayank, info

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4652 bytes --]

A further point -- were it to be a norm if a contributor to something like
this be denied their full capacity for "free speech" by social convention,
it would either encourage anonymous funding (less accountable) or would
disincentivize creating such initiatives in the future.

Both of those outcomes would be potentially bad, so I don't see limiting
speech on an unrelated topic as a valid action.

However, I think the inverse could have merit -- perhaps funders can
somehow commit to 'abstracting' themselves from involvement in cases / the
process of accepting prospective clients. As neither Alex nor Jack are
lawyers (afaict?), this should already be true to an extent as the legal
counsel would be bound to attorney client privilege.

Of course we live in a free country and however Jack and Alex determine
they should spend their own money is their god-given right, as much as it
is unfortunately the right of anyone to sue a developer for some alleged
infringement. I'm personally glad that Jack and Alex are using their money
to help developers and not harass them -- many thanks for that!

One question I have is how you might describe the differences between what
BLDF can accomplish and what e.g. EFF can accomplish. Having been
represented by the EFF on more than one occasion, they are fantastic. Do
you feel that the Bitcoin-specific focus of BLDF outweighs the more general
(but deeper experience/track record) of an organization like the EFF (or
others, like Berkman Cyberlaw Clinic, etc)? My main opinion is "the more
the merrier", so don't consider it a critique, more a question so that you
have the opportunity to highlight the unique strengths of this approach.

Best,

Jeremy
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>


On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:50 AM Steve Lee via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I think the word "The" is important. The title of the email and the name
> of the fund is Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund. It is "a" legal defense fund;
> not THE Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund. There is room for other funds and
> strategies and anyone is welcome to create alternatives.
>
> I also don't see why Alex or anyone should be denied the opportunity to
> comment on future soft forks or anything about bitcoin. Alex should have no
> more or less right to participate and his comments should be judged on
> their merit, just like yours and mine.
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:37 AM Prayank via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jack,
>>
>>
>> > The main purpose of this Fund is to defend developers from lawsuits
>> regarding their activities in the Bitcoin ecosystem, including finding and
>> retaining defense counsel, developing litigation strategy, and paying legal
>> bills. This is a free and voluntary option for developers to take advantage
>> of if they so wish. The Fund will start with a corps of volunteer and
>> part-time lawyers. The board of the Fund will be responsible for
>> determining which lawsuits and defendants it will help defend.
>>
>> Thanks for helping the developers in legal issues. Appreciate your
>> efforts and I understand your intentions are to help Bitcoin in every
>> possible way.
>>
>>
>> Positives that I see in this initiative:
>>
>> 1.Developers don't need to worry about rich scammers and can focus on
>> development.
>>
>> 2.Financial help for developers as legal issues can end up in wasting lot
>> of time and money.
>>
>> 3.People who have misused courts to affect bitcoin developers will get
>> better response that they deserve.
>>
>>
>> I had few suggestions and feel free to ignore them if they do not make
>> sense:
>>
>> 1.Name of this fund could be anything and 'The Bitcoin Legal Defense
>> Fund' can be confusing or misleading for newbies. There is nothing official
>> in Bitcoin however people believe things written in news articles and some
>> of them might consider it as an official bitcoin legal fund.
>>
>> 2.It would be better if people involved in such important funds do not
>> comment/influence soft fork related discussions. Example: Alex Morcos had
>> some opinions about activation mechanism during Taproot soft fork IIRC.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Prayank
>>
>> A3B1 E430 2298 178F
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8013 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-01-12  0:47 ` René Pickhardt
  2022-01-12  1:42   ` Christopher Allen

  
From: Alex Morcos @ 2022-01-13 19:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: René Pickhardt;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1227 bytes --]

To belatedly answer Rene's question:

Yes, we hope so. To start, the Fund will focus on the defense of the
pending litigation and new litigation that may arise. However, we intend to
build up the capacity to provide competent third-party advice to developers
on strategies to reduce their liability.

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 7:47 PM René Pickhardt <r.pickhardt@googlemail•com>
wrote:

>
>
> jack via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> schrieb am
> Mi., 12. Jan. 2022, 01:35:
>
>> To Bitcoin Developers:
>>
>> Open-source developers, who are often independent, are especially
>> susceptible to legal pressure.
>
>
> Will the fund eventually also help to educate developers about the risks
> they are facing and which measures can be taken to reduce such risks so
> that legal pressure might not even arise in the first place?
>
> The main purpose of this Fund is to defend developers from lawsuits
>> regarding their activities in the Bitcoin ecosystem, including finding and
>> retaining defense counsel, developing litigation strategy, and paying legal
>> bills. This is a free and voluntary option for developers to take advantage
>> of if they so wish.
>
>
> Thank you!
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2107 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-01-13 18:54   ` Alex Schoof

  
From: Steve Lee @ 2022-01-13 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alex Schoof;  Prayank, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion, info

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3909 bytes --]

That's a good point. Agree!

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:54 AM Alex Schoof <alex.schoof@gmail•com> wrote:

> > I also don't see why Alex or anyone should be denied the opportunity to
> comment on future soft forks or anything about bitcoin. Alex should have no
> more or less right to participate and his comments should be judged on
> their merit, just like yours and mine.
>
> I think the concern is something like: "I disagree with a board member of
> the defense fund about [insert contentious issue]. If I disagree with them
> publicly (especially if there are clear economic implications in that
> disagreement), am I putting myself at risk in the future where I won't be
> able to get support from the fund because I spoke out against a board
> member?" That kind of concern can be mitigated through policy and
> governance, but is the kind of thing you want to tackle before it becomes
> an issue.
>
> Cheers,
>
> (a different) Alex
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:49 PM Steve Lee via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> I think the word "The" is important. The title of the email and the name
>> of the fund is Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund. It is "a" legal defense fund;
>> not THE Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund. There is room for other funds and
>> strategies and anyone is welcome to create alternatives.
>>
>> I also don't see why Alex or anyone should be denied the opportunity to
>> comment on future soft forks or anything about bitcoin. Alex should have no
>> more or less right to participate and his comments should be judged on
>> their merit, just like yours and mine.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:37 AM Prayank via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jack,
>>>
>>>
>>> > The main purpose of this Fund is to defend developers from lawsuits
>>> regarding their activities in the Bitcoin ecosystem, including finding and
>>> retaining defense counsel, developing litigation strategy, and paying legal
>>> bills. This is a free and voluntary option for developers to take advantage
>>> of if they so wish. The Fund will start with a corps of volunteer and
>>> part-time lawyers. The board of the Fund will be responsible for
>>> determining which lawsuits and defendants it will help defend.
>>>
>>> Thanks for helping the developers in legal issues. Appreciate your
>>> efforts and I understand your intentions are to help Bitcoin in every
>>> possible way.
>>>
>>>
>>> Positives that I see in this initiative:
>>>
>>> 1.Developers don't need to worry about rich scammers and can focus on
>>> development.
>>>
>>> 2.Financial help for developers as legal issues can end up in wasting
>>> lot of time and money.
>>>
>>> 3.People who have misused courts to affect bitcoin developers will get
>>> better response that they deserve.
>>>
>>>
>>> I had few suggestions and feel free to ignore them if they do not make
>>> sense:
>>>
>>> 1.Name of this fund could be anything and 'The Bitcoin Legal Defense
>>> Fund' can be confusing or misleading for newbies. There is nothing official
>>> in Bitcoin however people believe things written in news articles and some
>>> of them might consider it as an official bitcoin legal fund.
>>>
>>> 2.It would be better if people involved in such important funds do not
>>> comment/influence soft fork related discussions. Example: Alex Morcos had
>>> some opinions about activation mechanism during Taproot soft fork IIRC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Prayank
>>>
>>> A3B1 E430 2298 178F
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Alex Schoof
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5890 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-01-13 19:05   ` Jeremy

  
From: Antoine Riard @ 2022-01-13 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeremy, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion;  Prayank, info

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6249 bytes --]

> One question I have is how you might describe the differences between
what BLDF can accomplish and what e.g. EFF can accomplish. Having been
represented by the EFF on more than one occasion, they are fantastic. Do
you feel that the Bitcoin-specific focus of BLDF outweighs the more general
(but deeper experience/track record) of an organization like the EFF (or
others, like Berkman Cyberlaw Clinic, etc)? My main opinion is "the more
the merrier", so don't consider it a critique, more a question so that you
have the opportunity to highlight the unique strengths of this approach.

I think one opportunity could be building legal assistance in a diversity
of jurisdictions, beyond the US one.

I join the kudos about the EFF, though you won't find the institutional
equivalent in term of subjects expertise/readiness-to-assist in most of the
other countries.
Especially considering the growing number of developers located outside
US/Europe and a lot of great ecosystem initiatives nurturing that trend.

Cheers,
Antoine

Le jeu. 13 janv. 2022 à 14:06, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> a écrit :

> A further point -- were it to be a norm if a contributor to something like
> this be denied their full capacity for "free speech" by social convention,
> it would either encourage anonymous funding (less accountable) or would
> disincentivize creating such initiatives in the future.
>
> Both of those outcomes would be potentially bad, so I don't see limiting
> speech on an unrelated topic as a valid action.
>
> However, I think the inverse could have merit -- perhaps funders can
> somehow commit to 'abstracting' themselves from involvement in cases / the
> process of accepting prospective clients. As neither Alex nor Jack are
> lawyers (afaict?), this should already be true to an extent as the legal
> counsel would be bound to attorney client privilege.
>
> Of course we live in a free country and however Jack and Alex determine
> they should spend their own money is their god-given right, as much as it
> is unfortunately the right of anyone to sue a developer for some alleged
> infringement. I'm personally glad that Jack and Alex are using their money
> to help developers and not harass them -- many thanks for that!
>
> One question I have is how you might describe the differences between what
> BLDF can accomplish and what e.g. EFF can accomplish. Having been
> represented by the EFF on more than one occasion, they are fantastic. Do
> you feel that the Bitcoin-specific focus of BLDF outweighs the more general
> (but deeper experience/track record) of an organization like the EFF (or
> others, like Berkman Cyberlaw Clinic, etc)? My main opinion is "the more
> the merrier", so don't consider it a critique, more a question so that you
> have the opportunity to highlight the unique strengths of this approach.
>
> Best,
>
> Jeremy
> --
> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
> <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:50 AM Steve Lee via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> I think the word "The" is important. The title of the email and the name
>> of the fund is Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund. It is "a" legal defense fund;
>> not THE Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund. There is room for other funds and
>> strategies and anyone is welcome to create alternatives.
>>
>> I also don't see why Alex or anyone should be denied the opportunity to
>> comment on future soft forks or anything about bitcoin. Alex should have no
>> more or less right to participate and his comments should be judged on
>> their merit, just like yours and mine.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:37 AM Prayank via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jack,
>>>
>>>
>>> > The main purpose of this Fund is to defend developers from lawsuits
>>> regarding their activities in the Bitcoin ecosystem, including finding and
>>> retaining defense counsel, developing litigation strategy, and paying legal
>>> bills. This is a free and voluntary option for developers to take advantage
>>> of if they so wish. The Fund will start with a corps of volunteer and
>>> part-time lawyers. The board of the Fund will be responsible for
>>> determining which lawsuits and defendants it will help defend.
>>>
>>> Thanks for helping the developers in legal issues. Appreciate your
>>> efforts and I understand your intentions are to help Bitcoin in every
>>> possible way.
>>>
>>>
>>> Positives that I see in this initiative:
>>>
>>> 1.Developers don't need to worry about rich scammers and can focus on
>>> development.
>>>
>>> 2.Financial help for developers as legal issues can end up in wasting
>>> lot of time and money.
>>>
>>> 3.People who have misused courts to affect bitcoin developers will get
>>> better response that they deserve.
>>>
>>>
>>> I had few suggestions and feel free to ignore them if they do not make
>>> sense:
>>>
>>> 1.Name of this fund could be anything and 'The Bitcoin Legal Defense
>>> Fund' can be confusing or misleading for newbies. There is nothing official
>>> in Bitcoin however people believe things written in news articles and some
>>> of them might consider it as an official bitcoin legal fund.
>>>
>>> 2.It would be better if people involved in such important funds do not
>>> comment/influence soft fork related discussions. Example: Alex Morcos had
>>> some opinions about activation mechanism during Taproot soft fork IIRC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Prayank
>>>
>>> A3B1 E430 2298 178F
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9904 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-01-13 18:20 ` jack

  2022-01-14 18:18     ` qmccormick13
  2022-01-21 14:36   ` Zac Greenwood
  
From: Aymeric Vitte @ 2022-01-14 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: jack, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion, Prayank;  info

(P2P?) Electronic Cash (Defense?) Fund or Electronic Cash Foundation ?
More neutral, potentially covering others than Bitcoin, mimicking a bit
EFF (even if as stated US is not the only target), referring to
Satoshi's paper where everything started

Maybe I am not up to date but it would be good to know what are the
current procedures with the Tulip thing

Aymeric


Le 13/01/2022 à 19:20, jack via bitcoin-dev a écrit :
> Hi Prayank,
>
>> On 13 Jan 2022, at 10:13, Prayank <prayank@tutanota•de> wrote:
>> I had few suggestions and feel free to ignore them if they do not make sense:
>>
>> 1.Name of this fund could be anything and 'The Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund' can be confusing or misleading for newbies. There is nothing official in Bitcoin however people believe things written in news articles and some of them might consider it as an official bitcoin legal fund.
> Excellent point. Will come up with a better name.
>
>> 2.It would be better if people involved in such important funds do not comment/influence soft fork related discussions. Example: Alex Morcos had some opinions about activation mechanism during Taproot soft fork IIRC.
> Yes. Will think through this and board operating principles we can share publicly, which would probably include criteria for how cases are chosen, to protect against this board and fund influencing direction.
>
> Open to ideas and suggestions on all.
>
> jack
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev




 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-01-14 13:21   ` Aymeric Vitte

  2022-01-14 18:34       ` Jeremy
  
From: qmccormick13 @ 2022-01-14 18:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Aymeric Vitte, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion;  Prayank, info

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2089 bytes --]

I very much hope the fund will not finance lawsuits irrelevant to bitcoin.

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 5:23 PM Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> (P2P?) Electronic Cash (Defense?) Fund or Electronic Cash Foundation ?
> More neutral, potentially covering others than Bitcoin, mimicking a bit
> EFF (even if as stated US is not the only target), referring to
> Satoshi's paper where everything started
>
> Maybe I am not up to date but it would be good to know what are the
> current procedures with the Tulip thing
>
> Aymeric
>
>
> Le 13/01/2022 à 19:20, jack via bitcoin-dev a écrit :
> > Hi Prayank,
> >
> >> On 13 Jan 2022, at 10:13, Prayank <prayank@tutanota•de> wrote:
> >> I had few suggestions and feel free to ignore them if they do not make
> sense:
> >>
> >> 1.Name of this fund could be anything and 'The Bitcoin Legal Defense
> Fund' can be confusing or misleading for newbies. There is nothing official
> in Bitcoin however people believe things written in news articles and some
> of them might consider it as an official bitcoin legal fund.
> > Excellent point. Will come up with a better name.
> >
> >> 2.It would be better if people involved in such important funds do not
> comment/influence soft fork related discussions. Example: Alex Morcos had
> some opinions about activation mechanism during Taproot soft fork IIRC.
> > Yes. Will think through this and board operating principles we can share
> publicly, which would probably include criteria for how cases are chosen,
> to protect against this board and fund influencing direction.
> >
> > Open to ideas and suggestions on all.
> >
> > jack
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2950 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-01-14 18:18     ` qmccormick13

  
From: Jeremy @ 2022-01-14 18:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: qmccormick13, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion;  Prayank, info

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3765 bytes --]

If I understand the intent of your message correctly, that's unfortunately
not how the law works.

If there is a case that is precedent setting, whether it directly involves
bitcoin or not, a bitcoin focused legal fund might want to either offer
representation or file an amicus brief to guide the court to making a
decision beneficial to Bitcoin Developers.

More than likely, some of these cases would involve developers of
alternative projects (as they might be "ahead of the curve" on legal
problems) and heading off a strong precedent for other communities would be
protective for Bitcoiners in general. As an example, were the developers
building Rollups on Ethereum to face a legal threat, since we might one day
want similar software for Bitcoin, ensuring a good outcome for them helps
Bitcoin.

That said, all organizations must at some point have a defined scope, and
it seems the BLDF is primarily focused for now on things impacting the
developers of Bitcoin or software for bitcoin specifically. I "trust" the
legal team behind BLDF will form a coherent strategy around what is
relevant to Bitcoin defense, even if the particulars of a case are not
directly about Bitcoin.

cheers,

Jeremy
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>


On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 10:25 AM qmccormick13 via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I very much hope the fund will not finance lawsuits irrelevant to bitcoin.
>
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 5:23 PM Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> (P2P?) Electronic Cash (Defense?) Fund or Electronic Cash Foundation ?
>> More neutral, potentially covering others than Bitcoin, mimicking a bit
>> EFF (even if as stated US is not the only target), referring to
>> Satoshi's paper where everything started
>>
>> Maybe I am not up to date but it would be good to know what are the
>> current procedures with the Tulip thing
>>
>> Aymeric
>>
>>
>> Le 13/01/2022 à 19:20, jack via bitcoin-dev a écrit :
>> > Hi Prayank,
>> >
>> >> On 13 Jan 2022, at 10:13, Prayank <prayank@tutanota•de> wrote:
>> >> I had few suggestions and feel free to ignore them if they do not make
>> sense:
>> >>
>> >> 1.Name of this fund could be anything and 'The Bitcoin Legal Defense
>> Fund' can be confusing or misleading for newbies. There is nothing official
>> in Bitcoin however people believe things written in news articles and some
>> of them might consider it as an official bitcoin legal fund.
>> > Excellent point. Will come up with a better name.
>> >
>> >> 2.It would be better if people involved in such important funds do not
>> comment/influence soft fork related discussions. Example: Alex Morcos had
>> some opinions about activation mechanism during Taproot soft fork IIRC.
>> > Yes. Will think through this and board operating principles we can
>> share publicly, which would probably include criteria for how cases are
>> chosen, to protect against this board and fund influencing direction.
>> >
>> > Open to ideas and suggestions on all.
>> >
>> > jack
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6543 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-01-13 18:20 ` jack
  2022-01-14 13:21   ` Aymeric Vitte

  
From: Zac Greenwood @ 2022-01-21 14:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion, jack;  Prayank, info

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1122 bytes --]

The name of the fund should ideally unambiguously clarify its scope, i.e.,
Bitcoin & development. So maybe “Bitcoin Developers Community LDF”. Or
perhaps “Bitcoin Technical Community LDF” which nicely abbreviates to
BTCLDF.

Zac


On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 19:49, jack via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hi Prayank,
>
> > On 13 Jan 2022, at 10:13, Prayank <prayank@tutanota•de> wrote:
> > I had few suggestions and feel free to ignore them if they do not make
> sense:
> >
> > 1.Name of this fund could be anything and 'The Bitcoin Legal Defense
> Fund' can be confusing or misleading for newbies. There is nothing official
> in Bitcoin however people believe things written in news articles and some
> of them might consider it as an official bitcoin legal fund.
>
> Excellent point. Will come up with a better name.
>
> Open to ideas and suggestions on all.
>
> jack
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1835 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]