Well the easiest thing to point to is their move away from GPL license. That may seem insignificant to the uninitiated, but its a literal maneuver of theirs to take their product out of the FOSS space. Essentially they have transitioned from fostering open software ecosystem to leeching off of open source projects and building a proprietary walled garden. Its anti-FOSS. Its anti-Bitcoin.
You can also see NVK's ad-hominem attacks against other FOSS "competitors". Calling other hardware wallets, software wallets, even calling Android itself a shitcoin. Everything that isn't making NVK money is a shitcoin in NVK's eyes. He does this to tap into Bcoiner's strong anti-shitcoin mentality (which exists for a good reason), but in effect manipulates Bitcoiners into becoming COINKITE maximalists too. Ironically being a maximalist for a tool like a hardware wallet is antithetical to being a maximalist for a protocol like Bitcoin. The latter actually makes sense. The former is backasswards.
But really... if you haven't been following, or havent noticed the NVK rhetoric, then give nostr:npub1tr4dstaptd2sp98h7hlysp8qle6mw7wmauhfkgz3rmxdd8ndprusnw2y5g's thread a read. He outlines it better than me.
Yeah I read the thread and I have kind of half-followed this whole drama for awhile. I don't think there's anything wrong with transitioning off a FOSS license and providing non-FOSS products. Maybe NVK has been a jerk and I would say calling forkers "cloners" is lame, but I'm just not really moved by any of this mudslinging.
To be clear, I don't think every project everywhere needs to be GPL or FOSS. But Bitcoin wallets should be. Bitcoin's ethos is to build open tools to empower people over institutions. An institution that builds proprietary Bitcoin tools clearly doesn't get this ethos, and should not be trusted IMO.
Not to mention, relicensing GPL code to be non-GPL is against the terms of the license. Any subsequent license would be null, AFAIK.
Yes it would be null.
I think source-available Bitcoin wallets are fine. I don't see why they need to FOSS vs source-available.
Well this is just my opinion, but its about ethos. Proprietary projects by their nature build to centralize things in their walled gardens. FOSS projects build to decentralize.
Bitcoin's ethos is as important to me as any other technical aspect of the project, therefore I'm wary of Bitcoin projects that behave counter to that ethos.
But again... thats just my opinion. I'm open to having my mind changed on that 🍻
Building non-FOSS source-available tools helps the builders get paid for their work, while still providing the transparency needed for verification, as well as providing the possibility of guerilla underground reproduction of the tools if the government shuts the project down. Most source-available tools are free to use for anything except resale. Not only coinkite but also Start9 and Umbrel are non-FOSS source-available. These are badass cypherpunk tools. Without the freedom to license themselves according to their needs, some of these projects may not even exist at all.
Cheers 🍻 🤙
Badass cypherpunk tools that wouldn't exist if the state didn't protect their code lol
Wut?
GPL is not state-protected?
We all live under threat of violence. We can't just pretend it's not there. Adapt.
If I fork coldcard's code today and start selling a product using this code, who will protect coldcard from me?
The same people who will come for your Bitcoin
Yes, exactly. The antithesis of Bitcoin protects coldcard.
Just because we live under the threat of violence from the state doesn't mean we should adapt to use the state to be violent against each other. That is regression. It is weak.
Principles are tight. Some have em and keep em, others "adapt"
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
