-
**Excerpt:** A controversy over intellectual property highlights the lack of Bitcoin institutions to resolve disputes. Key fact 1: A bitcoiner takes action against another bitcoiner based on intellectual property laws Key fact 2: the dispute revolves around similarities in bitcoin clocks -------------------------------------------  > "What is not good for the hive is not good for the bee." Marcus Aurelius Someone who identifies as a bitcoiner, who creates successful bitcoin products aimed at providing sovereignty and privacy to the user but who indirectly calls on the State to initiate force against another bitcoiner, is that person really a bitcoiner? Or rather, despite being a bitcoiner, is their behavior in accordance with the ethos of Bitcoin, with the essential moral principles driven by the Bitcoin phenomenon? When there is a dispute within Bitcoin's layer one about how things should be done, it is resolved through the unparalleled dispute resolution and governance mechanism based on proof of work. On the other hand, when there is a dispute in Bitcoin's layer zero, which is composed of individuals who act as nodes and collaborators of the[basilisk]( https://njump.me/nevent1qqsrq3qzr48lerhhdtf42tyt7cfcx8ld5drtpr6fthals2galsxl9dqpzemhxue69uhkummnw3ex2mrfw3jhxtn0wfnj7q3q9nsxj76rpstyzk2s8zgacxf2xzm66k7rxplyxl7zdrc2k8hr607qxpqqqqqqznzfrul) how should we resolve disputes? The trigger for this article is the news that a few weeks ago the bitcoiner[djuri]( http://njump.me/nevent1qqst22qclvkw7p8fqhcukrcc6m8unjh0ppp72t9heq8gf89eeu82qagpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsyg94zfaq3nenv938fqq2gwrcsx5lnrsyh8phz9hf9hjj2pycvdwyygpsgqqqqqqsp40qy3)was legally summoned by the bitcoiner[NVK]( https://njump.me/npub1az9xj85cmxv8e9j9y80lvqp97crsqdu2fpu3srwthd99qfu9qsgstam8y8) because the latter understood that the former had violated his "intellectual property rights." The legally summoned party, djuri, is the creator of a product that according to NVK would have some characteristics that would make it somewhat similar to a product he made and whose "intellectual property" -fiat- he has registered. That is to say, NVK invoked the force of the State -fiat- with the intention that it be applied against djuri. And it did so with the intention of defending its "intellectually" registered property.  > *--- "Intellectual property is a valuable asset that must be protected and respected by everyone."* - Bill Gates. A registration of "intellectual property" consists of an entry in a state registry -fiat- where the person registering the "right" -fiat- petitions the State -fiat- to initiate coercion, force, violence, and threats against anyone whom the State interprets as violating that "right" -fiat-. Likewise, that registration grants the registrant the "right" -fiat- to petition the State to interpret that their "right" has been violated. And in the event that the latter shares the interpretation made by the registrant, the State can then activate its intrinsic mechanism of threats, violence, and coercion against the aforementioned violator of the "right" -fiat-. Most of current positive law is fiat law and its mostly contradictory to natural law. The former is a fictional state invention based on the myth of authority, while the latter is rationally deduced from the principles of Nature. Natural law is the Bitcoin of law.  * > --- "Intellectual property is the foundation of innovation and progress in modern society." - Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States. Intellectual property is a completely fiat fiction. Natural law absolutely rejects the artificial legal aberration created by authoritarian legislators. The institution of private property only makes sense to protect scarce goods. Let's see an example: Alice has an apple and is hungry, but since she is busy posting on Nostr, she decided to eat it later. Thirty minutes later, she goes down to her kitchen and can't find the apple. It turns out that Bob, her roommate, ate it. Alice reproaches Bob for the action because, despite having bought the apple and having it in her possession, she lost it due to Bob's action and is still hungry. Alice understands that the interruption of the nutritional and gustatory pleasure that the apple would have provided constitutes a harm to her person. Since she was the owner of the unique and irreproducible object consisting of the totality of molecules that, when linked together, formed the apple existing in the physical space where Alice and Bob reside. Furthermore, Alice understands that once the apple is eaten by one person, it cannot be eaten by another. Therefore, Alice concludes that she has suffered a harm. And considering the objective development of the facts, she attributes that damage to Bob. The attribution of damage occurs during a discussion they have in the kitchen of their house, which unfolds as follows: Alice: *-“What the fuck Bob, you ate my fruit again. I want to beat the shit out of you. You better move your ass straight into the fruitshop right now and you bring me two apples or hell is gonna break loose”* To which Bob, seeing that Alice is a bit irritable, and feeling guilty for his previous incorrect action of having deprived Alice of her fruit, heads to the fruitshop, buys two apples with his money, and hands them to Alice with a smile and an apology. In this way, nature was balanced, a small injustice was resolved, and Alice and Bob can continue to cooperate mutually in peace and with the aim of growing individually as well as in their community. This favorable outcome occurred due to respect for the institution of private property. Now let's look at a second example. One that involves "intellectual" private property. Charlie is composing a song in a shared area of his co-living space. While experimenting with different sound arrangements over time, Daniel passes by and hears a particular melody that catches his attention and sticks in his memory. Subsequently, Charlie releases a song with that melody, and more or less at the same time, Daniel does the same. Therefore, we arrive at the situation where two product creators have generated content that partially shares certain elements. Content consumers of Daniel as well as of Charlie can enjoy both compositions indistinctly. Likewise, both Daniel and Charlie can enjoy all the zaps the market sends them, all the fame their songs have created, all the ticket sales for shows that, due to taking place in the physical world, have limitations on reproducibility, all the sales of both physical and digital merchandise, all the fame their works bring them, all the sponsors that fame attracts, all the various future contracts that come their way thanks to their previous works, all the awards they deserve for their works, etc., etc., etc. In summary: each of the digitally supported content creators can enjoy all the fruits that the current and future market grants them as a reward for their contribution to humanity. While at the same time, all users of their works can enjoy the created songs indiscriminately and without limitations.  This happens because in the physical world, when someone eats an apple belonging to another person, the latter is left without eating it. Whereas in the digital world, when someone listens to a song, no one is left without listening to it. For those who want to delve deeper into the glaring contradiction of the fiat intellectual property institute, I recommend any product of the extensive work of Stephan Kinsella. Libertarian lawyer specializing in patents who has developed the topic in a rational, extensive, and sufficiently convincing manner. > --- "Intellectual property is a state monopoly that restricts freedom of expression and innovation." - Stephen Kinsella, in "Against Intellectual Property" I clarify that I do not suggest that every bitcoiner must necessarily repudiate the fiat institution of intellectual property. We are living through a transition between two worlds, and each person is adapting to the institutions of the new reality at their own pace. Personally, I see that Bitcoin is incompatible with the fiat State and it´s fiat intellectual property racket. In the long run, one of the two will have to change, and it won't be Bitcoin. In the meantime, it is up to each bitcoiner to lean more towards open source code - as Bitcoin does - or towards closed source code, as driven by fiat-state intellectual property laws. ### Call to reason What I do propose as an urgent and essential cultural necessity within the bitcoin community is to avoid resorting to the State to solve problems among bitcoiners. An invitation of a third party that relies on armed goons and professional extortionists to fulfill its purposes is something that can be avoided. Sometimes the most important actions we can take are actually inactions. In matters of dispute resolution, in issues related to how to deal with others, we tend to err more by incorrect actions than by incorrect inactions. The neo-institutions of Bitcoin law, anarcho-capitalism, or crypto-anarchism necessary to resolve disputes without calling for the intervention of unwanted third parties are under development and are another essential element for the recovery of human freedom. Meanwhile, to not initiate force on others should be our guiding principle. With Bitcoin, we managed to remove money from the hands of the States. With Nostr, we managed to remove social networks and public information from the tyrannical and authoritarian control of the narrative. With new institutions based on natural law and rational dispute resolution, we will succeed in removing the power to dispense justice from the hands of the fiat lords. ------------------------------------------- Camilo JdL at 878.992 timechain. If you find this content helpful, zap it to support more content of the sort and to boost the V4V model.