Something people are forgetting about the Gentoo / Luke-jr censorship issue

Something people are forgetting about the Gentoo / Luke-jr censorship issue
2014-10-10 16:42 ` Jeff Garzik
  
From: xor @ 2014-10-10 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1214 bytes --]

Hey folks,

FYI the issue is that Luke-Jr wants to include code which can censor stuff like 
SatoshiDice transactions because he thinks they are denial of service:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=524512

While everyone is jumping on the neutrality Bitcoin should have, you're 
forgetting that there are also *legal* implications:
The *technical ability'* to filter certain types of network traffic can cause you 
to be legally liable to *USE* it to filter illegal stuff. 
So even if the filter code is disabled by default, it can put Bitcoin users in 
legal danger: Law enforcement can try to force them to use it.

This for sure depends on the country you are living in, but in general I think 
it can be agreed that it will be a lot easier to defend a "my node relays 
everything uncensored" policy against law enforcement if you wouldn't even 
have the technical ability to filter stuff because the code just cannot do it 
anyway. 

So please do not even include this code as disabled, and if possible do not 
even write or publish it :)

Also, as I don't have a Gentoo bugtracker account, can someone please add this 
comment there?

Thanks & Gretings,
	xor - a developer of https://freenetproject.org/

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-10-10 16:22 [Bitcoin-development] Something people are forgetting about the Gentoo / Luke-jr censorship issue xor

  2014-10-10 17:26   ` Mike Hearn
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2014-10-10 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: xor;  Bitcoin Dev

The whole issue is a troll, and I'm afraid you got sucked in.

There are no plans to add a blacklist to Bitcoin Core.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-10-10 16:42 ` Jeff Garzik

  2014-10-10 18:41     ` Justus Ranvier
  2014-10-10 19:02     ` Thomas Zander
  
From: Mike Hearn @ 2014-10-10 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeff Garzik;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1276 bytes --]

I'm sure this suggestion will go down like a lead balloon, but Bitcoin Core
is not the first project that's had issues with Linux distros silently
modifying their software as they package it. In this case Luke has changed
things to be closer to what users expect, which is good to see, but I
expect to see the same issue crop up with other Linux distributions in
future. The temptation to "improve" things when you're a middleman is just
too great.

The usual approach to fixing it is trademark the project name and use that
to enforce "clean" packaging. Firefox and Chrome both take this approach.
I'll probably do the same with Lighthouse (need to figure out the
trademarking process first).

The goal here is not to remove choice, rather to ensure people know what
they're getting. It's reasonable to assume if you do "emerge bitcoin" then
you're getting Bitcoin Core as distributed by bitcoin.org, not a highly
opinionated fork of it. Renaming a project and creating a package under the
new name is not only better for end users, but lets the fork grow into
something else and be more usable to people on other distros too.

In this case "Bitcoin" is already a trademark, though I lost track of who
owns it at the moment (the foundation?) but I guess Bitcoin Core is not.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1624 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-10-10 17:26   ` Mike Hearn

  2014-10-10 19:02     ` Thomas Zander
  
From: Justus Ranvier @ 2014-10-10 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2884 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 10/10/2014 05:26 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> I'm sure this suggestion will go down like a lead balloon, but
> Bitcoin Core is not the first project that's had issues with Linux
> distros silently modifying their software as they package it. In
> this case Luke has changed things to be closer to what users
> expect, which is good to see, but I expect to see the same issue
> crop up with other Linux distributions in future. The temptation to
> "improve" things when you're a middleman is just too great.
> 
> The usual approach to fixing it is trademark the project name and
> use that to enforce "clean" packaging. Firefox and Chrome both take
> this approach. I'll probably do the same with Lighthouse (need to
> figure out the trademarking process first).
> 
> The goal here is not to remove choice, rather to ensure people know
> what they're getting. It's reasonable to assume if you do "emerge
> bitcoin" then you're getting Bitcoin Core as distributed by
> bitcoin.org, not a highly opinionated fork of it. Renaming a
> project and creating a package under the new name is not only
> better for end users, but lets the fork grow into something else
> and be more usable to people on other distros too.
> 
> In this case "Bitcoin" is already a trademark, though I lost track
> of who owns it at the moment (the foundation?) but I guess Bitcoin
> Core is not.

Regardless of whether this is a good idea or not in general, it won't
work in the case of Gentoo (and similar source-based distributions)
because Gentoo doesn't distribute software - they distribute
instructions which allow end users to download, compile, and install
software (ebuilds).

On my system I can compile a modified Firefox that still calls itself
"Firefox" by setting USE="-bindist". This would put Gentoo in
violation of Mozilla's trademarks if they were distributing that
modified version, but they aren't, so they're not. They just
distribute the instructions that tells my copy of Portage how to
compile the modified version. As long as I don't distribute the
modified binaries I compiled, then neither am I violating Mozilla's
trademarks.

tl;dr: The trademarking approach is only effective with regards to
binary distributions, not source-based distributions.


- -- 
Support online privacy by using email encryption whenever possible.
Learn how here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bakOKJFtB-k
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJUOChPAAoJEMP3uyY4RQ21DNoH/0Yb3GpF230UGfQQ7Y2qQ4Sr
QTNW6hwMaLSwRvdnkAxmQf1S2I3da6AJkXcyyUavJuqw+m6lxdiA3OwUQOZblEUS
HkZqajS3gpCCmYJGbHD+DT3YnvDaeIQmuacsxMTXpVWK5QleH6mSdpbomc2TCS+D
JulZuSQJSB997uNKqYvQmwe0b3ImgND6omoOZABjFrLESeYgQWLFBthl9vwBLtFB
DqRbyvrl6+vFzX9yObAt0+iSDkoHHkPbg2/KeUCKuJaIqvFyBo0t9dvx/tvQJupk
TY39a/0MW8z524e2s2SwsZbmYXSBLTlDhkTbWR0lPQH5OOcrmH7cpEG1vsZH9yY=
=tfaE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: 0x38450DB5.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 14046 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-10-10 17:26   ` Mike Hearn
  2014-10-10 18:41     ` Justus Ranvier

  
From: Thomas Zander @ 2014-10-10 19:02 UTC ( / )
  To: bitcoin-development

On Friday 10. October 2014 19.26.49 Mike Hearn wrote:
> I'm sure this suggestion will go down like a lead balloon, but Bitcoin Core
> is not the first project that's had issues with Linux distros silently
> modifying their software as they package it. 

And so far its been near impossible for those others to make distros not 
modify it.
Firefox is actually a good idea, it made debian stop distributing it.

Best solution is to build good relations with the packagers of distros.

ps. Linux distros distributing GPL licensed apps are required by law to offer 
the sources of the thing they build and distribute as binary. Which allows you 
to check the difference with upstream. Most distros therefore have a process in 
place for this. Even for not FLOSS software like bitcoin core.