Quote from: The One on July 14, 2017, 02:57:57 PM

Quote from: allinvain on July 14, 2017, 10:20:29 AM

gmaxwell's reply to that article:

Quote

Gregory Maxwell

Blockstream does not have any patents, patent applications, provisional patent applications, or anything similar, related to segwit. As is the case for other major protocol features, the Bitcoin developers worked carefully to not create patent complications. Segwit was a large-scale collaboration across the community, which included people who work for Blockstream among its many contributors.

Moreover, because the public disclosure of segwit was more than a year ago, we could not apply for patents now.

In the prior thread where this absurdity was alleged on Reddit I debunked it forcefully. Considering that Rick directly repeated the tortured misinterpretation of our patent pledge from that thread (a pledge which took an approach that was lauded by multiple online groups), I find it hard to believe that he missed these corrections, doubly so in that he provides an incomplete response to them as though he were anticipating a reply, when really hed already seen the rebuttal and should have known that there was nothing to these claims.

As an executive of Blockstream and one of the contributors to segwit, my straightforward public responses 1) that we do not, have not, will not, and can not apply for patents on segwit, 2) that if had we done so we would have been ethically obligated to disclose it, and 3) that even if we had done so our pledge would have made it available to everyone not engaging in patent aggression (just as the plain language of our pledge states): If others depended upon these responses, it would create a reliance which would preclude enforcement by Blockstream or our successors in interest even if the statements were somehow all untrueor so the lawyers tell me.

In short, Rick Falkvinges allegations are entirely without merit and are supported by nothing more than pure speculation which had already been debunked.

Politicians say that sort of thing all the time. At a later date they get caught, makes excuses, lie, etc. When there is a conflict of interest, individual credibility are shot. Beside, we all know what politicians' pledges are like. Make loads of them to win an election and do something else when in power. Greg, is basically behaving like a politician. A decentralise Bitcoin does not need centralise organisation such as Blockstream and their partners getting involved in development. One must ask, what do these companies want in return?

The article "Blockstream having patents in Segwit makes all the weird pieces of the last three years fall perfectly into place" may be an editorial and without merit. But I would give Mr. Maxwell's rebuttal the same one star review. He may be an "executive" of Blockstream (which given his Core duties is a conflict of interest), but that does not mean he knows whether patents have been applied for or not. His response boils down to "trust me."
And you see, it's that very loose element of the human condition and lack there of, that inspired Satoshi to invent bitcoin.
So, no. I at least won't trust any of you. History has shown that to be bad for my financial health.