Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.148.110 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.148.110; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail148110.authsmtp.com; 
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:15:57 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Daniel Stadulis <dstadulis@gmail.com>,
	bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <20150120171557.GA29353@muck>
References: <20150120154641.GA32556@muck>
	<CAHpxFbEoDLMGKB7arHbgB+4kx8BwgcX7nBUZz6yP9k4LjZeu1A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHpxFbEoDLMGKB7arHbgB+4kx8BwgcX7nBUZz6yP9k4LjZeu1A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The legal risks of auto-updating wallet
 software; custodial relationships
Precedence: list


--3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 08:43:57AM -0800, Daniel Stadulis wrote:
> Hey Peter,
>=20
> What would you say to the argument: given developers have auto update
> capabilities they only have the ability to *give themselves* *the ability=
* to
> have custodial rights?

Heh, well, courts tend not to have the narrow-minded pedantic logic that
programmers do; quite likely that they'd see having the ability to give
themselves the ability as equivalent to simply having the ability. What
matters more is intent: the authors of an operating system had no intent
to have a custodial relationship over anyones' BTC, so they'd be off the
hook. The authors of a Bitcoin wallet on the other hand, depends on how
you go about it.

For instance Lighthouse has something called UpdateFX, which allows for
multi-signature updates. It also supports deterministic builds, and
allows users to chose whether or not they'll follow new updates
automatically, or only update on demand. In a court that could be all
brought up as examples of intent *not* to have a custodial relationship,
which may be enough to sway judge/jury, and certainly will help avoid
ending up in court in the first place by virtue of the fact that all
those protections help avoid theft, and increase the # of people that an
authority need to involve to seize funds via an update.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000001a5e1dc75b28e8445c6e8a5c35c76637e33a3e96d487b74c

--3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=nRuq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF--