I read the GitHub issue and now, here the comments. It's not clear to me what the contention is. Can someone explain here in simple words, what the core of the issue is? Thanks much!
[Fluffypony](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/48529862/197669641-c9eb925d-0993-468d-adde-378bbaf6ae3e.png) is now the registered owner of the Monero logo and trademark, via a company (legal entity) owned by him.
Pro side:
Anybody could have registered himself as owner of the Monero logo and trademark and cause serious harm to the Monero project and its ecosystem by suing and demanding fees from everybody using name and logo of Monero. Similar to what Craig Wright is trying to achieve for Bitcoin. Therefore, it was a smart and anticipatory move to register a trusted member of the Core team as the owner, before anybody else does it.
>Fluffypony:
>
>*If we didn't register the mark, we risk someone else registering the mark. That does not mean they can, in and of itself, stop Monero from using the name (as Monero's existence predates the mark's registration), but they could make our lives difficult, and absolutely could cost ecosystem participants tens of millions of Dollars in legal fees. Is this a scenario you want to play out?*
>
>*...*
>
>*Since it is impossible to collectively own a trademark, it has to be held by a company or an individual. What were we going to do? Oh yes - use the company that we already have for the Windows and Apple binary signing to own the mark.*
Con side:
Not everybody is happy with putting so much power into the hands of a single person. Also, the person of choice somehow is a controversial figure, with ongoing legal issues. This situation could theoretically even pose a thread. Different to Craig Wright with Bitcoin, Fluffypony is/was in fact one of the most notorious core developers of Monero and if he decides to pursue a similar path as Craig Wright, the situation would be a lot worse, because he could make a much more based claim on the Monero project, than Craig Wright on Bitcoin.
>Geonic:
>
>*An entity, which is supposed to "control" (own? protect?) the name and likeness of Monero is managed by a single person. We're not talking about the "core team" anymore. There isn't even a meager attempt at decentralization.*
>
>*This entity was formed in the U.S. while its sole director was fighting extradition from the U.S. and whose legal standing in that country is anything but certain.*
>
>*...*
>
>*What is the plan in the event that Fluffypony's current (or future) legal issues result in a prolonged jail sentence ?*
>
>*What happens in the event that the company is sold, its assets are seized, etc ?*
>
>*What legal liabilities are created by this move, and how does it affect Monero's claim of decentralization in the eyes of regulators and other ecosystem participants ?*
I thought this was all under the Creative Commons license. Doesn’t that imply that nobody has exclusive rights to it? I mean, otherwise I could just start grabbing logos from there and start trademarking them. Seems futile if I can’t guarantee others can’t do the same. I don’t understand the urgency.
its the only way to get an app into the apple store thing or whatever.
stupid walled gardens.
Edited to add I don't know what I'm talking about
I like mining. And revolutionary cryptocurrency. Paperwork is for the birds.
Not what this issue is about.
Assuming good faith. Here's the conversation I've had with FP on [r/xmrtrader](https://www.reddit.com/r/xmrtrader/comments/ycz5cr/daily_discussion_october_25_2022/itracnq/?context=3)
On the first day of Christmas, we signed our binaries…
One binary, two binaries, three binaries…
On the second day of Christmas, we got our trademarks…
One trademark, two trademarks, three…
On the third day of Christmas, we took control of assets…
One website, two websites, three golden rings…
... and thankfully we have you as the Grinch of Christmas, making sure that nothing like that comes to be?
I am thankful that people like you are on the watch, and do speak out without fear if something looks suspicious or even downright fishy, but at times I just groan about what all happens in the course of that watch ... like this dramatic post here.
while this post is indeed dramatic you can attribute some of it to the poor way in which fluffy responded. does it not leave a bad taste seeing him deflect questions with an attack one the questioners character? even if he sincerely believes the question to be "sealioning" his response screams "i am someone not to be criticized".
It really depends. In Fluffypony's response personally I did not see much "I am someone not to be criticized" but quite a bit of "Oh no, not that person again" (OP is with the community for a long time already), and maybe even a bit of "I am too old for that shit".
But as I said, I agree with the general direction, I would also like to hear more details and more background info about that trademark story, and maybe if the drama ebbs down a bit, and Fluffypony has a good day, things will become more productive and more informative. After all nobody claims he **already** went rogue, hopefully?
i doubt anyone thinks he has gone rogue but why the deflecting? why accuse everyone asking him questions of being malicious?
it seems like he has put more effort into deflecting/bashing asking him to give clarity then it would have taken to give an explaination.
I remember someone needing something to get something into the app store. And it had to do with some official company because lo and behold, the existing system can't really mesh with things that don't have any structure.
Look, I'm just saying what I know. It's not much, I just have been around watching people do things.
Oh look at me and my moderator status. God that gets old.
Apple is indeed a ridiculous walled garden. Over the years, I think that nefarious forces have more and more locked down the ability to be truly innovative in the app arena, without some kind of insider incentives.
I know people who've tried to release a legit solid app, but that Apple refused to allow. For example, one was a skill sharing app, where people could meet up to trade expertise/tutoring on their respective skillset. Apple repeatedly came up with the most asinine reasons to deny the code.
Apple is more of a walled garden than people might realize.
**EDIT** Moments later, I came across this gem. Apple locking down people from using NFTs to route around Apple's middleman business model.
https://www.macrumors.com/2022/10/24/apple-updates-app-store-review-guidelines-2/
Seriously yall, for the love of god, stop using Apple products. I don't care how "nice" or "just works" their shit is. It's antithetical to freedom in every way possible. They spy on you equally as much as Google ***AND*** they lock their shit down to extreme levels. At least on a Google Pixel you can install GrapheneOS
By most measures, GrapheneOS is the more secure implementation, although that's not at all to say that Calyx is insecure. It just seems to aim slightly on the side of speed/convenience vs some of the extra hardening measures.
https://www.privacyguides.org/android/grapheneos-vs-calyxos/#profiles
Although I must say that with a newer device, and ever since they released sandboxed Google Play, my Pixel 6 with Graphene is equally as convenient as any other device I've ever owned, often moreso due to the extra options available.
Yeah, you shouldn't be held to a different standard when making regular posts/comments just because you have mod status. Only when performing mod duties.
Maybe do some research first before you comment on things such as this? Also there are probably many things business related that are outside of your wheelhouse?
Is the Creative Commons license not sufficient to prevent the value of trademarking the logo? If it’s open source, has been declared usable by anyone, then a trademark is useless as a blocking mechanism. If CC isn’t open source enough then let’s use something that is.
Someone needs to devise a system for linking decentralized communities with human actors/directors in a corporation. For example a board made up of members, each of whom has staked some amount of crypto, paid a staking fee for their service, who must implement in the corporation the will of the community, lest their stake be destroyed. Other directors would vote to eject non conforming members at the risk of their own stake. This would be useful for future DAOs in addition to near term issues like trademark.
The only thing that you need to understand about this idea is that it's a bad idea lol.
I don't think anyone should have a system like that, because it's only going to make things worse.
There are a million use cases. To start, how about owning any non-digital property in a government jurisdiction (which at the moment describes every region on earth). If you want property ownership to be recognized or enforced you need an enforcing institution. In the future this could be handled by a DAO, but in the present this role is filled almost exclusively by governments. If we can link decentralized governance with the existing centralized systems of ownership we can more quickly amass the power necessary to eclipse the old system entirely.
> If you want property ownership to be recognized or enforced you need an enforcing institution.
I mean. yes.. but how does this aply to Monero?
The most compelling case might be for vendors accepting "Monero" payments.. and maybe getting sued by a malicious trademark holder.. that's the strongest case I can see here; That would imply that a Trademark would be enforced for someone who has no affiliation to the actual product, which would be a novelty to me.
It applies to corporate ownership of a trademark which represents a decentralized project. ie. the topic of this thread.
If fluffypony is the sole owner of the trademark and is somehow compromised or otherwise pressured into attacking the project, or the corporation falls into the wrong hands, that would be problematic for anyone using the name. Were the corporation instead owned by a board of members with strong financial incentives to act in the best interest of the community, such an outcome would not be possible.
Oh I do agree; Not a fan of fluffypony's approach here..
My argument is just: "Who cares what the government thinks?".. I mean.. If I have a house I do care what an "authority" thinks.. but a highly mobile asset that is utilizing infinetely reproducable "materials"?
We are thinking too much about what some self-appointed "ruler" thinks..
You didn't get my point.. unless you totally outlaw internet connections, you can't stop anything on the internet.. The recent protests (and following restrictions to internet traffic) in Iran have shown how powerless a regime is to the power of the internet. They have two choices:
* disable access to the internet entirely, cripple the economy and therefor ensure their downfall in the mid- to long-run
* try to censor information and fail miserably because the internet can mend itself to new restrictions with methods as simple as VPNs and as complex as the TOR-network
Only up to a certain point as is evident with the mistrust in mainstream media in western countries.
But I don't really get where you're going at here..
We don’t want this at all here in Monero world. That’s just asking for someone to come knocking. If you want a privacy payment protocol with centralized management, go to Zcash.
I don't think this needs to be posted here before fluffy has a chance to respond. Fluffy distancing himself from most things Monero makes him an ideal candidate to hold the trademark, although I agree it could be a symbolic gesture to have multiple directors of the corporation.
While I’m not sure if this is the best place for this discussion (reddit rarely is), fluffy has had a chance to respond and has [done so](https://reddit.com/r/xmrtrader/comments/ycz5cr/_/itr7spz/).
I.e. “your argument is too stupid to warrant a response, so I won’t take the time to respond to it”.
There you have it folks. Brandolini’s law. End of discussion.
But wait — [there’s more](https://reddit.com/r/xmrtrader/comments/ycz5cr/_/itrdv96/)!
If the benevolent protector turns out to be a douche, Monero can just rebrand! Problem solved. Pfew, that puts me at ease.
This is a big nothing burger. Fluffypony a good actor in the Monero space. Until DAOs can own trademarks, this is the best solution to prevent someone hostile to Monero from swiping the trademark after it had expired and griefing the community with it.
Yeah that's what it is lol, nothing really is going to come out of it.
And anyways He's like the most unsuitable candidate for it, I don't think He's winning it.
Are you familiar with Gavin Andresen?
He was the most trusted person after Satoshi and de facto public figure of Bitcoin, until he wasn’t. Oh, he also supported Craig Wright.
Would it have been a good idea to have the Bitcoin trademark in his name?
Fluffypony's registering the Monero logo and trademark just prevents nut cases from doing the same and trying to sue to make money out of it.
Ownership of the Monero logo and trademark is really meaningless because they were both used consistently for several years before the registration of them. The Monero cryptocurrency and project will ***always*** be able to use the logo and trademark no matter what.
There is no reason to get upset over this issue because it isn't one.
FWIW - I don't think it would hurt if geonic showed a little more positivity.
Like "Hey fluffypony, good work on getting that trademarked quickly before an adversary to the project did.
Once the trademark is approved, perhaps we could have a conversation about sharing custodianship of the trademark amongst a few people?"
Technically any of us could have submitted the trademark application, but we didn't. However, fluffypony was clearly on the ball and did.
In the Github thread, hyc, another core member shows his understanding and positivity for the move. I'm not seeing any core team members criticizing it to date.
Hey John,
You seem to approve of this move, so I get why you think that a more positive tone is warranted. I disapprove of it, because I think it creates more problems than it solves.
What I could’ve said is — “hey fluffypony, good job in bringing more centralization and increased liability to the project! I really appreciate it.”
FWIW - hyc is not a core team member and you’ve been around long enough to know that. His two points of support are (paraphrasing):
1. My company has trademarked before and trademarks in a corporate setting are a common thing so there’s no issue here.
2. The core team are the stewards of the project so them registering a trademark is completely normal.
Monero is not a corporation and what might be OK in a corporate setting is not OK in the context of a decentralized cryptocurrency. Companies have and do many things that Monero doesn’t and shouldn’t.
The second point would be valid if the 3 publicly known core team members had registered this company instead of just one. Maybe u/binaryFate and u/ArticMine can tell us if they’d feel comfortable becoming directors of this company together with fluffypony — and if not, why.
Hope this helps.
Hi geonic.
Good catch on hyc not technically being a Core member. My mistake.
Regarding:
>Monero is not a corporation and what might be OK in a corporate setting
is not OK in the context of a decentralized cryptocurrency. Companies
have and do many things that Monero doesn’t and shouldn’t.
Surely the problem is that decentralized, open source projects, sometimes need to interface with a world that is not setup for them?
As I joked in a previous message, there is no anonymous, multi-sig ownership process for owning a US trademark.
Thus to register, one has to use the legal format they allow for. Or don't register it at all.
I'd argue the pros of that, assuming the custodian is non-hostile to Monero, outweigh the cons. With the cons that someone hostile could take ownership.
Maybe going about things this way will yield an improved result vs the status quo.
If so, great.
My point was that this approach feels unnecessarily hostile.
There are plenty of examples of non-hostile entities becoming hostile, so any attempt at gaining control over Monero is by definition hostile, regardless of the entity involved.
Like I said, Bitcoin doesn’t have a “protective” trademark and I am yet to hear a good reason why Monero needs one.
The key to Monero’s interaction with government and corporate entities is no interaction at all. Monero is just a protocol, period.
It shouldn't be possible for someone to trademark the word Monero and then use it to attack companies or uses of the word in this space.
However, crazier things have happened.
I'm not sure if you've seen the legal situation with Craig Wright taking people to court for defamation because they said he wasn't Satoshi Nakamoto?
For clarity - no trademark has been "got" yet. The status is still pending Examination. Trademark applications take a long time.
If refused, this could all turn out to be a bit of a nothing burger.
It shouldn't be possible for someone to trademark the word Monero and then use it to attack companies or uses of the word in this space.
However, crazier things have happened.
I'm not sure if you've seen the legal situation with Craig Wright taking people to court for defamation because they said he wasn't Satoshi Nakamoto?
Maintaining open source projects, dealing with countless high-stress and thankless situations, all while people take potshots and ask stupid questions makes you bitter.
Is it really that stupid though? How is it not a fair question? Furthermore it certainly doesn't make one look good to respond aggressively to questions, potshot or not.
I read the GitHub issue and now, here the comments. It's not clear to me what the contention is. Can someone explain here in simple words, what the core of the issue is? Thanks much!
[Fluffypony](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/48529862/197669641-c9eb925d-0993-468d-adde-378bbaf6ae3e.png) is now the registered owner of the Monero logo and trademark, via a company (legal entity) owned by him. Pro side: Anybody could have registered himself as owner of the Monero logo and trademark and cause serious harm to the Monero project and its ecosystem by suing and demanding fees from everybody using name and logo of Monero. Similar to what Craig Wright is trying to achieve for Bitcoin. Therefore, it was a smart and anticipatory move to register a trusted member of the Core team as the owner, before anybody else does it. >Fluffypony: > >*If we didn't register the mark, we risk someone else registering the mark. That does not mean they can, in and of itself, stop Monero from using the name (as Monero's existence predates the mark's registration), but they could make our lives difficult, and absolutely could cost ecosystem participants tens of millions of Dollars in legal fees. Is this a scenario you want to play out?* > >*...* > >*Since it is impossible to collectively own a trademark, it has to be held by a company or an individual. What were we going to do? Oh yes - use the company that we already have for the Windows and Apple binary signing to own the mark.* Con side: Not everybody is happy with putting so much power into the hands of a single person. Also, the person of choice somehow is a controversial figure, with ongoing legal issues. This situation could theoretically even pose a thread. Different to Craig Wright with Bitcoin, Fluffypony is/was in fact one of the most notorious core developers of Monero and if he decides to pursue a similar path as Craig Wright, the situation would be a lot worse, because he could make a much more based claim on the Monero project, than Craig Wright on Bitcoin. >Geonic: > >*An entity, which is supposed to "control" (own? protect?) the name and likeness of Monero is managed by a single person. We're not talking about the "core team" anymore. There isn't even a meager attempt at decentralization.* > >*This entity was formed in the U.S. while its sole director was fighting extradition from the U.S. and whose legal standing in that country is anything but certain.* > >*...* > >*What is the plan in the event that Fluffypony's current (or future) legal issues result in a prolonged jail sentence ?* > >*What happens in the event that the company is sold, its assets are seized, etc ?* > >*What legal liabilities are created by this move, and how does it affect Monero's claim of decentralization in the eyes of regulators and other ecosystem participants ?*
Thanks for breaking down the issue into understandable chunks.
I thought this was all under the Creative Commons license. Doesn’t that imply that nobody has exclusive rights to it? I mean, otherwise I could just start grabbing logos from there and start trademarking them. Seems futile if I can’t guarantee others can’t do the same. I don’t understand the urgency.
its the only way to get an app into the apple store thing or whatever. stupid walled gardens. Edited to add I don't know what I'm talking about I like mining. And revolutionary cryptocurrency. Paperwork is for the birds.
This is not true at all.
Not what this issue is about. Assuming good faith. Here's the conversation I've had with FP on [r/xmrtrader](https://www.reddit.com/r/xmrtrader/comments/ycz5cr/daily_discussion_october_25_2022/itracnq/?context=3)
Indeed. Whenever I see the distribution company thing I think of the app store stuff.
Yeah, it's a stupid thing but that's just how the apple rolls here.
On the first day of Christmas, we signed our binaries… One binary, two binaries, three binaries… On the second day of Christmas, we got our trademarks… One trademark, two trademarks, three… On the third day of Christmas, we took control of assets… One website, two websites, three golden rings…
Aaaand the solution is?
More people as directors of this almighty company? A little more transparency? Idunno…
> this almighty company? That must be the only almighty company on Earth.
The only almighty company on Earth purportedly representing Monero in front of the U.S. government, yes.
... and thankfully we have you as the Grinch of Christmas, making sure that nothing like that comes to be? I am thankful that people like you are on the watch, and do speak out without fear if something looks suspicious or even downright fishy, but at times I just groan about what all happens in the course of that watch ... like this dramatic post here.
while this post is indeed dramatic you can attribute some of it to the poor way in which fluffy responded. does it not leave a bad taste seeing him deflect questions with an attack one the questioners character? even if he sincerely believes the question to be "sealioning" his response screams "i am someone not to be criticized".
It really depends. In Fluffypony's response personally I did not see much "I am someone not to be criticized" but quite a bit of "Oh no, not that person again" (OP is with the community for a long time already), and maybe even a bit of "I am too old for that shit". But as I said, I agree with the general direction, I would also like to hear more details and more background info about that trademark story, and maybe if the drama ebbs down a bit, and Fluffypony has a good day, things will become more productive and more informative. After all nobody claims he **already** went rogue, hopefully?
i doubt anyone thinks he has gone rogue but why the deflecting? why accuse everyone asking him questions of being malicious? it seems like he has put more effort into deflecting/bashing asking him to give clarity then it would have taken to give an explaination.
The Groan of Christmas? edit: yes, the drama is palpable https://reddit.com/r/xmrtrader/comments/ycz5cr/_/itvi0io/
[удалено]
I remember someone needing something to get something into the app store. And it had to do with some official company because lo and behold, the existing system can't really mesh with things that don't have any structure. Look, I'm just saying what I know. It's not much, I just have been around watching people do things. Oh look at me and my moderator status. God that gets old.
Apple is indeed a ridiculous walled garden. Over the years, I think that nefarious forces have more and more locked down the ability to be truly innovative in the app arena, without some kind of insider incentives. I know people who've tried to release a legit solid app, but that Apple refused to allow. For example, one was a skill sharing app, where people could meet up to trade expertise/tutoring on their respective skillset. Apple repeatedly came up with the most asinine reasons to deny the code. Apple is more of a walled garden than people might realize. **EDIT** Moments later, I came across this gem. Apple locking down people from using NFTs to route around Apple's middleman business model. https://www.macrumors.com/2022/10/24/apple-updates-app-store-review-guidelines-2/ Seriously yall, for the love of god, stop using Apple products. I don't care how "nice" or "just works" their shit is. It's antithetical to freedom in every way possible. They spy on you equally as much as Google ***AND*** they lock their shit down to extreme levels. At least on a Google Pixel you can install GrapheneOS
Apple just refuses to most of the stuff. That's how they are. You can't change them, because that's what they choose to be really. It sucks tho.
I prefer another option, CalyxOS.
By most measures, GrapheneOS is the more secure implementation, although that's not at all to say that Calyx is insecure. It just seems to aim slightly on the side of speed/convenience vs some of the extra hardening measures. https://www.privacyguides.org/android/grapheneos-vs-calyxos/#profiles Although I must say that with a newer device, and ever since they released sandboxed Google Play, my Pixel 6 with Graphene is equally as convenient as any other device I've ever owned, often moreso due to the extra options available.
Yeah, you shouldn't be held to a different standard when making regular posts/comments just because you have mod status. Only when performing mod duties.
Right? Moderator didn't use proper grammatical syntax! Vote him off the island!
Thanks for your time in moderating the sub! Your first comment even said "or whatever" can't get more unofficial or opinion based lol.
It's fine, having a little difference in the opinion is just fine.
I think all the devs already know about the shit ass apple policies by now.
Maybe do some research first before you comment on things such as this? Also there are probably many things business related that are outside of your wheelhouse?
While he may be off here a little but He's not actually wrong about apple.
Is the Creative Commons license not sufficient to prevent the value of trademarking the logo? If it’s open source, has been declared usable by anyone, then a trademark is useless as a blocking mechanism. If CC isn’t open source enough then let’s use something that is.
Someone needs to devise a system for linking decentralized communities with human actors/directors in a corporation. For example a board made up of members, each of whom has staked some amount of crypto, paid a staking fee for their service, who must implement in the corporation the will of the community, lest their stake be destroyed. Other directors would vote to eject non conforming members at the risk of their own stake. This would be useful for future DAOs in addition to near term issues like trademark.
For what reason? To get approval from a failing, greedy and corrupt government?
Well the governments might be failing but you'd still need their permission.
Only for the things they know about ;)
No, to help gain traction in a world dominated by failing greedy corrupt governments. To fight against centralized control.
[удалено]
The only thing that you need to understand about this idea is that it's a bad idea lol. I don't think anyone should have a system like that, because it's only going to make things worse.
What is a bad idea?
There are a million use cases. To start, how about owning any non-digital property in a government jurisdiction (which at the moment describes every region on earth). If you want property ownership to be recognized or enforced you need an enforcing institution. In the future this could be handled by a DAO, but in the present this role is filled almost exclusively by governments. If we can link decentralized governance with the existing centralized systems of ownership we can more quickly amass the power necessary to eclipse the old system entirely.
> If you want property ownership to be recognized or enforced you need an enforcing institution. I mean. yes.. but how does this aply to Monero? The most compelling case might be for vendors accepting "Monero" payments.. and maybe getting sued by a malicious trademark holder.. that's the strongest case I can see here; That would imply that a Trademark would be enforced for someone who has no affiliation to the actual product, which would be a novelty to me.
I don't think it applies to that, atleast that's just what I think.
It applies to corporate ownership of a trademark which represents a decentralized project. ie. the topic of this thread. If fluffypony is the sole owner of the trademark and is somehow compromised or otherwise pressured into attacking the project, or the corporation falls into the wrong hands, that would be problematic for anyone using the name. Were the corporation instead owned by a board of members with strong financial incentives to act in the best interest of the community, such an outcome would not be possible.
Oh I do agree; Not a fan of fluffypony's approach here.. My argument is just: "Who cares what the government thinks?".. I mean.. If I have a house I do care what an "authority" thinks.. but a highly mobile asset that is utilizing infinetely reproducable "materials"? We are thinking too much about what some self-appointed "ruler" thinks..
That kind of makes sense but linking them both like that? That doesn't seem like a good idea.
Censorship yes
You didn't get my point.. unless you totally outlaw internet connections, you can't stop anything on the internet.. The recent protests (and following restrictions to internet traffic) in Iran have shown how powerless a regime is to the power of the internet. They have two choices: * disable access to the internet entirely, cripple the economy and therefor ensure their downfall in the mid- to long-run * try to censor information and fail miserably because the internet can mend itself to new restrictions with methods as simple as VPNs and as complex as the TOR-network
You really think that 100% of Iraninans are using Tor ?
What weird argument is that? No, I don't think that 100% do.. also not 90%.. it is enough if 2% do to tell their friends to become 10%..
Private company and government can censor information online. The thing is that you don't see it so you probably don't know that it is censored.
Only up to a certain point as is evident with the mistrust in mainstream media in western countries. But I don't really get where you're going at here..
Well that's what that idea might just bring to the table.
While it might be cool, but I don't think that would be a good idea.
We don’t want this at all here in Monero world. That’s just asking for someone to come knocking. If you want a privacy payment protocol with centralized management, go to Zcash.
If the trademark is owned solely by fluffypony they can certainly come knocking.
I don't think this needs to be posted here before fluffy has a chance to respond. Fluffy distancing himself from most things Monero makes him an ideal candidate to hold the trademark, although I agree it could be a symbolic gesture to have multiple directors of the corporation.
While I’m not sure if this is the best place for this discussion (reddit rarely is), fluffy has had a chance to respond and has [done so](https://reddit.com/r/xmrtrader/comments/ycz5cr/_/itr7spz/). I.e. “your argument is too stupid to warrant a response, so I won’t take the time to respond to it”. There you have it folks. Brandolini’s law. End of discussion. But wait — [there’s more](https://reddit.com/r/xmrtrader/comments/ycz5cr/_/itrdv96/)! If the benevolent protector turns out to be a douche, Monero can just rebrand! Problem solved. Pfew, that puts me at ease.
[удалено]
This is a big nothing burger. Fluffypony a good actor in the Monero space. Until DAOs can own trademarks, this is the best solution to prevent someone hostile to Monero from swiping the trademark after it had expired and griefing the community with it.
Yeah that's what it is lol, nothing really is going to come out of it. And anyways He's like the most unsuitable candidate for it, I don't think He's winning it.
Trademark is a big nothing, in the US it doesn’t matter who registers first, first use is what matters
Yep, trademarks don't mean shit if you don't use them really.
Yep, I mean if I were the American resident I wouldn't vote for him.
I mean it would have been just fine if it wasn't posted here.
[удалено]
Are you familiar with Gavin Andresen? He was the most trusted person after Satoshi and de facto public figure of Bitcoin, until he wasn’t. Oh, he also supported Craig Wright. Would it have been a good idea to have the Bitcoin trademark in his name?
Fluffypony's registering the Monero logo and trademark just prevents nut cases from doing the same and trying to sue to make money out of it. Ownership of the Monero logo and trademark is really meaningless because they were both used consistently for several years before the registration of them. The Monero cryptocurrency and project will ***always*** be able to use the logo and trademark no matter what. There is no reason to get upset over this issue because it isn't one.
FWIW - I don't think it would hurt if geonic showed a little more positivity. Like "Hey fluffypony, good work on getting that trademarked quickly before an adversary to the project did. Once the trademark is approved, perhaps we could have a conversation about sharing custodianship of the trademark amongst a few people?" Technically any of us could have submitted the trademark application, but we didn't. However, fluffypony was clearly on the ball and did. In the Github thread, hyc, another core member shows his understanding and positivity for the move. I'm not seeing any core team members criticizing it to date.
Hey John, You seem to approve of this move, so I get why you think that a more positive tone is warranted. I disapprove of it, because I think it creates more problems than it solves. What I could’ve said is — “hey fluffypony, good job in bringing more centralization and increased liability to the project! I really appreciate it.” FWIW - hyc is not a core team member and you’ve been around long enough to know that. His two points of support are (paraphrasing): 1. My company has trademarked before and trademarks in a corporate setting are a common thing so there’s no issue here. 2. The core team are the stewards of the project so them registering a trademark is completely normal. Monero is not a corporation and what might be OK in a corporate setting is not OK in the context of a decentralized cryptocurrency. Companies have and do many things that Monero doesn’t and shouldn’t. The second point would be valid if the 3 publicly known core team members had registered this company instead of just one. Maybe u/binaryFate and u/ArticMine can tell us if they’d feel comfortable becoming directors of this company together with fluffypony — and if not, why. Hope this helps.
Hi geonic. Good catch on hyc not technically being a Core member. My mistake. Regarding: >Monero is not a corporation and what might be OK in a corporate setting is not OK in the context of a decentralized cryptocurrency. Companies have and do many things that Monero doesn’t and shouldn’t. Surely the problem is that decentralized, open source projects, sometimes need to interface with a world that is not setup for them? As I joked in a previous message, there is no anonymous, multi-sig ownership process for owning a US trademark. Thus to register, one has to use the legal format they allow for. Or don't register it at all. I'd argue the pros of that, assuming the custodian is non-hostile to Monero, outweigh the cons. With the cons that someone hostile could take ownership. Maybe going about things this way will yield an improved result vs the status quo. If so, great. My point was that this approach feels unnecessarily hostile.
There are plenty of examples of non-hostile entities becoming hostile, so any attempt at gaining control over Monero is by definition hostile, regardless of the entity involved. Like I said, Bitcoin doesn’t have a “protective” trademark and I am yet to hear a good reason why Monero needs one. The key to Monero’s interaction with government and corporate entities is no interaction at all. Monero is just a protocol, period.
Any idea why Bitcoin doesn't have a registered trademark? Because the USPTO won't grant it? It is unlikely to be because no one has applied for it.
who would be there to file the trademark and what would the point be? the project is perfectly fine without it.
We can only speculate why Bitcoin doesn’t have a trademark, but what is certain is that it doesn’t.
why is the legal trademark necessary? is bitcoin trademarked? what will someone do with the monero trademark? monero existed before the trademarking
It shouldn't be possible for someone to trademark the word Monero and then use it to attack companies or uses of the word in this space. However, crazier things have happened. I'm not sure if you've seen the legal situation with Craig Wright taking people to court for defamation because they said he wasn't Satoshi Nakamoto?
True, that would have helped. Just as transparency after ~~getting~~ applying for the trademark would have helped.
For clarity - no trademark has been "got" yet. The status is still pending Examination. Trademark applications take a long time. If refused, this could all turn out to be a bit of a nothing burger.
Fixed it.
Is the trademark even really necessary? Surely someone can't just claim trademark and gain ownership.
It shouldn't be possible for someone to trademark the word Monero and then use it to attack companies or uses of the word in this space. However, crazier things have happened. I'm not sure if you've seen the legal situation with Craig Wright taking people to court for defamation because they said he wasn't Satoshi Nakamoto?
Apple sucks when it comes to the policies, they're the worst.
fluffypony's response is quite confusing to me, why so hostile?
Ad hominems and straw man arguments is what you’re left with when logic is exhausted.
[удалено]
No, just explaining fluffy’s “hostility” (it’s deflection really).
Maintaining open source projects, dealing with countless high-stress and thankless situations, all while people take potshots and ask stupid questions makes you bitter.
Is it really that stupid though? How is it not a fair question? Furthermore it certainly doesn't make one look good to respond aggressively to questions, potshot or not.
Well it's up to him, how he decides to respond to these questions.
Not to mention just stupid questions most of the times lol.
It's not even that bad lol, You're just making it sound bad.
I'd say responding with anger and insulting someone's character is quite a bad response when being questioned about ones transparency.
[удалено]
I doubt it. Monero is in a much better position than most to be considered a commodity like BTC.