1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1YWXRT-0007lF-6G
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 13 Mar 2015 21:48:27 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.179 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.179; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f179.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f179.google.com ([209.85.223.179])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YWXRR-0006HP-UN
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 13 Mar 2015 21:48:27 +0000
Received: by ieclw3 with SMTP id lw3so128852684iec.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.247.68 with SMTP id mb4mr60532270icb.2.1426283297561;
Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.36.54.147 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55034205.4030607@localhost.local>
References: <55034205.4030607@localhost.local>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:48:17 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ZtBtPNhdGgtNxJ0M8ByWWgkr_KE
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2OM6BrEsgqe5j23qaZp7wypOFJOZf+cNuMMe12WBv8LA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@riseup.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba1ef2ea4ce45d051132750e
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YWXRR-0006HP-UN
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Criminal complaints against "network
disruption as a service" startups
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 21:48:27 -0000
--90e6ba1ef2ea4ce45d051132750e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
That would be rather new and tricky legal territory.
But even putting the legal issues to one side, there are definitional
issues.
For instance if the Chainalysis nodes started following the protocol specs
better and became just regular nodes that happen to keep logs, would that
still be a violation? If so, what about blockchain.info? It'd be shooting
ourselves in the foot to try and forbid block explorers given how useful
they are.
If someone non-maliciously runs some nodes with debug logging turned on,
and makes full system backups every night, and keeps those backups for
years, are they in violation of whatever pseudo-law is involved?
I think it's a bit early to think about these things right now. Michael
Gr=C3=B8nager and Jan M=C3=B8ller have been Bitcoin hackers for a long time=
. I'd be
interested to know their thoughts on all of this.
--90e6ba1ef2ea4ce45d051132750e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">That would be rather new and tr=
icky legal territory.=C2=A0</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra">But even putting the legal issues to one side, there =
are definitional issues.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_extra">For instance if the Chainalysis nodes started following =
the protocol specs better and became just regular nodes that happen to keep=
logs, would that still be a violation? If so, what about <a href=3D"http:/=
/blockchain.info">blockchain.info</a>? It'd be shooting ourselves in th=
e foot to try and forbid block explorers given how useful they are.</div><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">If someone no=
n-maliciously runs some nodes with debug logging turned on, and makes full =
system backups every night, and keeps those backups for years, are they in =
violation of whatever pseudo-law is involved?</div><div class=3D"gmail_extr=
a"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">I think it's a bit early to thi=
nk about these things right now. Michael Gr=C3=B8nager and Jan M=C3=B8ller =
have been Bitcoin hackers for a long time. I'd be interested to know th=
eir thoughts on all of this.</div></div>
--90e6ba1ef2ea4ce45d051132750e--
|
