Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Economics and Policy' started by cypherdoc, Aug 28, 2015.
Maybe it is a professional agency having hundreds of twitter-accounts and shuffling them to give covertly retweets?
What do you think about the patent issue? I'm thinking about writing about it, but am very clueless if it is relevant at all or not ...
@Christoph Bergmann : it would be interesting to get input from Andrew Hinkes, Esq, about the patent situation. Unless you're a lawyer familiar with this subject matter, I don't think there's much point in speculating.
All we can observe is that there might be a patent war about blockchain patents brewing between orgs like Blockstream, banks and big tech companies, nChain etc.
If you are writing about patents, maybe this dialog between Craig Stephen Wright (Satoshi?) and Adam Back could be relevant. They are not talking directly about patents, but they both controll lots of patents:
EDIT: They are talking about patents.
Release notes: https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited....4/doc/release-notes/release-notes-22.214.171.124.md
Ubuntu PPA repos update is in process.
As the twitter account the chat talks about patents of Schnorr. This is something Adam Back promises on top of SegWit (I have no clue why SegWit is needed for this), but not SegWit itself.
I'm currently mostly interested if
1) SegWit has technology which could be patented by Blockstream, which leads to the question if Blockstream's patent strategy is really safe. And
2) if SegWit accidentlly (or not accidently) uses some old tech which is patented. AFAIK Cypherpunks had a lot of patents, and many of the cover digital payment systems.
I guess I'll never find answers to this questions, as I both lack knowledge about patent laws as about the technology to identify if some parts of SegWit are covered by some patents. I can neither confirm nor refuse any answer. Which means the only safe and trustless way was to never ever let new technology on my system. Which is also no solution ...
I'm not very knowledgeable, but I don't see the patents as a problem: by being open source you can download and use it everywhere, even in the USA, I suppose?
And if github is unable to host patent-related algorithms the sources can be hosted elsewhere, for example in Europe where sw patents do not apply (yet).
Hm, that's like saying, a prohibition of Bitcoin is not a problem,or lawsuits are not a problem.
Sure, you can download, and users will not be affected. But what's with Coinbase? What's with companies serving US-customers?
I guess there is consensus that it would be a problem if parts of Bitcoin technology are patented. Question is if this could happen, and if you can write the patent in a way that it does no harm.
You're right, USA companies like coinbase would have to pay the fees for the usage, but I think that if blockstream would try to enforce its patents it would destroy all its reputation and lose a lot of hard-core (pun not intented) supporters.
Also, a fork of Bitcoin with non-patented algorithms would pop-up in no time.
Isn't it a little late for April Fool's?
@Norway , @Christoph Bergmann :
What's the source and context for that Wright vs. Back pastebin?
Don't know. It are snippets of a chat in core slack ... I slightly remember that Vlad Roberto, who acts as the voice of CSW, some month ago started to be intrigued by a connection between CSW and a poker / gaming mogul, and brought in that in the first version of Bitcoin there has been a decentralized poker inside ... the story gets really crazy and intriguing.
@Christoph Bergmann : I see, thanks!
Found this while browsing some old stuff: Endless blocksize debate - that's how it was called even back in 2015.
LOL, look at Matt's body language at the end of that video, handling the mic.
Greg is also wrong on the notion that you can't just fork consensus rules, BU has done just what he claims is not possible, BU forked Core, follows consensus while not supporting the transaction limit rule he calls a consensus rule.
The real irony is Greg Maxwell is doing the exact thing he highlights with an asterisks - intentional blocking the removal of the transaction limit with the result it is empirical evidence of driving user-cases to altcoins.
Maxwell is the kind of guy that would murder his parents, then when convicted and brought for sentencing, pleads for leniency because he's an orphan now.
In context of the patent talk regarding SegWit and Blockstream and after seeing the following below, I must admit that $70M Blockstream is the pinnacle of a productive start up in comparison:
Here's a product that resulted from $120M in funding, context:
@awemany, Wow, what a crazy product! A $400 machine to squeeze the liquid out of a $7 pre-packaged bag that expires after a week.
Speaking of patents:
The Juicero situation points to something horribly wrong with the venture capital industry. I suspect there are big implications to this story that relate to how Blockstream got so much funding.