MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56B7951A.2090800@gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T1Bd0-aQg-9uRa4u3dGA5fKxaj8-mEkxVzX8mhdj4Gt2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<201602060012.26728.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CABm2gDrns0+eZdLyNk=tDNbnMsC1tT1MfEY93cJf1V_8TPjmLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T2LuMZciXpMiY24+rPzhj1VT6j=HJ5STtnQmnfnA_XFUw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABeL=0i8_Ns25=OaXG86uSsQKzPA2YbTU_zRj6k6K48aYhw3wA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7E723AB3-ED80-40CE-B5BD-DD5F69486C16@toom.im>
	<56B7951A.2090800@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 13:19:44 -0600
Message-ID: <CALd2G5fX+_kCL52t0DVobE28bJ2UVLB7jYBktP=mLg1jMzrMkg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Trevin Hofmann <trevinhofmann@gmail.com>
To: Patrick Strateman <patrick.strateman@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e012292d08bec3c052b32f796
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2
	megabytes
Precedence: list

--089e012292d08bec3c052b32f796
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Patrick,

I would say that a company's terms of service should include their position
on this issue. It does not seem reasonable that they all are required to
provide access to coins on every single fork. Are custodial wallet users
also entitled to Clam, Zcash, and Decred, and others?

Regardless, I think this thread should be about the technical merits of the
BIP. Discussion of hard forks would be better held elsewhere.

On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Patrick Strateman via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I would expect that custodians who fail to produce coins on both sides
> of a fork in response to depositor requests will find themselves in
> serious legal trouble.
>
> Especially if the price moves against either fork.
>
> On 02/07/2016 10:55 AM, Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 6, 2016, at 9:21 PM, Jannes Faber via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> >
> >> They *must* be able to send their customers both coins as separate
> >> withdrawals.
> >>
> > Supporting the obsolete chain is unnecessary. Such support has not
> > been offered in any cryptocurrency hard fork before, as far as I know.
> > I do not see why it should start now.
> >>
> >> If not, that amounts to theft of their customers funds.
> >>
> > If they announce their planned behavior before the fork, I do not see
> > any ethical or legal issues.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

--089e012292d08bec3c052b32f796
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Patrick,<div><br></div><div>I would say that a company&#39=
;s terms of service should include their position on this issue. It does no=
t seem reasonable that they all are required to provide access to coins on =
every single fork. Are custodial wallet users also entitled to Clam, Zcash,=
 and Decred, and others?</div><div><br></div><div>Regardless, I think this =
thread should be about the technical merits of the BIP. Discussion of hard =
forks would be better held elsewhere.</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"=
><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Patrick Str=
ateman via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@=
lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat=
ion.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I would exp=
ect that custodians who fail to produce coins on both sides<br>
of a fork in response to depositor requests will find themselves in<br>
serious legal trouble.<br>
<br>
Especially if the price moves against either fork.<br>
<br>
On 02/07/2016 10:55 AM, Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Feb 6, 2016, at 9:21 PM, Jannes Faber via bitcoin-dev<br>
&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt; &lt;mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bi=
tcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; They *must* be able to send their customers both coins as separate=
<br>
&gt;&gt; withdrawals.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; Supporting the obsolete chain is unnecessary. Such support has not<br>
&gt; been offered in any cryptocurrency hard fork before, as far as I know.=
<br>
&gt; I do not see why it should start now.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; If not, that amounts to theft of their customers funds.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; If they announce their planned behavior before the fork, I do not see<=
br>
&gt; any ethical or legal issues.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--089e012292d08bec3c052b32f796--