Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is this?

A financial prize, awarded to Samourai’s lawyers, if they deliver a victory.

2. What if Samourai loses?

Then, Samourai (and their lawyers) do not get the money. It is returned to the donors.

3. Wouldn’t their need INCREASE, in that case?

The comfort of Samourai is not our goal. Instead – we want to win. We value privacy and digital rights.

If Samourai loses, it will be a setback for mankind. But, if Samourai wins, we will get: more privacy technology, more economic freedom, and more prosperity.

The payment is an incentive to deliver the win.

4. Why not donate directly (ie, unconditionally)?

The no-strings-attached donation has many flaws:

1. The lawyers are paid equally, whether Samourai wins or loses. For Samourai, however, the situation is asymmetric – if they lose, they suffer horribly. Ideally, both lawyer and defendant would care equally about the outcome.
2. The lawyers always have an incentive to ask for more – even if the case is doomed (and/or if it is already a blowout victory). No matter what, the temptation will be to say: “just a little more money, will help turn the tide”. This fosters mistrust, and suspicion, between attorney and client. Instead, a conditional donation would encourages a 100% honest collaboration.
3. It diverts attention – away from winning the case, toward fundraising. After all, the more money raised, the more the lawyers are paid – meanwhile, the fate of the case does not affect their paycheck.
4. If the case is lost, donors will feel disappointed. The anticipated disappointment, may prevent them from donating, in the first place. Instead, we can “de-risk” the donation – either [1] you get the win that you wanted, or [2] you get your money back. Since donors can’t lose, this may result in more donations.
5. No one wants to be the “first” to donate. Humans are social – we will attend a party, but only if we think other people are going. It is natural to prefer to donate as a big “herd”, all at once.

5. Is there any precedent for this type of arrangement?

Yes. Many lawyers work via a “No Win, No Fee” system. It was a plot point in the Academy Award nominated movie Erin Brockovich (2000).

Of course, our adversaries may throw difficulties in our path. We will do our best to overcome these.

6. If this is such a good idea, then why didn’t Dechert LLP (Samourai’s lawyers) suggest it from the start?

First, at the start of each case, no one knows how long it will go – if the charges will be dropped, what the stakes are, if donations are even needed, etc. There must be an initial period, where the facts are investigated.

Second, the client-attorney relationship is characterized by mutual prestige. It is in their mutual interest, to openly praise each other, and declare each other to be trustworthy (ie, “logrolling”). In contrast, a conditional payment, implies a more cynical and suspicious attitude.

Relatedly, once a case has begun, it is difficult for clients/lawyers to fire each other. Each is stuck with the other. In such cases, it is best to “assume good intent” so as to maintain a good working relationship. (In contrast, those of us on the sidelines, can afford to be a little less sanguine.)

Last, the “billable hour” model is the default, in the legal industry. It is what is best for the lawyers. We cannot fault them – the problem is with us.

7. What if the law firm is offended by this arrangement, and quits?!

This can only mean that the lawyers believe that the chances of winning the case are low. (And who would know, better than them?)

If that is the case, better to learn ASAP. So that we can change the strategy (to arranging a pardon, or political activism). Alternatively, it may mean that a better law firm, (who does see a way to win), is willing to work the case, in order to seek the prize.

8. Can we trust you to deliver the money?

Yes. But that is also what we would say, if we were untrustworthy.

We are open to suggestions for mitigating this, such as: legal contracts, multisig, involvement of neutral 3rd parties, auditors, escrow, etc. This is only day 1! Please suggest anything you think would help.

9. Can we reuse this model, for other Bitcoin cases?

Yes! Hopefully, we can learn from this experience – and improve it.

10. How do you know that the Samourai devs are innocent (or worth defending)?

According to the government, this case is about two people, and their behavior (ie, “money laundering” or “money transmission”). But that is not true. This case is really about technological progress.

Cryptocurrency is superior to banking in many ways – but (by its very nature) a blockchain must display all its transactions publicly. This incites crime, and is hostile to peace, and civilization. Naturally, the scientific community has therefore turned its attention toward blockchain privacy – inventing many tools (of which Samourai is just one). This is typical of progress – digital cameras were superior to film cameras in every way – except that early digital cameras had terrible image quality. The scientific community (including academia, entrepreneurs, and hobbyists) worked hard and improved the quality – to the benefit of us all.

Some criminals, will (in some cases) benefit, if the “blockchain privacy” problem is solved. But this does not justify the SDNY’s actions – on the contrary, it is evidence of their own grotesque laziness. As technology changes, we all adapt – including criminals and law enforcement. That is the price we ALL pay, to live in an improving world. The SDNY carves out a special exception for themselves – their laziness and inadaptability is (according to them) more important than the toil and distress of innumerable great-grand-children.

The SDNY wields the state’s monopoly on violence, and they intimidate anyone who gets in their way. They have selected – as their victims – a 36-year-old Appalachian high-school dropout, and a 66-year-old resident of Portugal. (Both with no criminal history.) These two, have to face down the SDNY – ie, hundreds of elite full-time lawyers, and an annual budget in the hundreds of millions of dollars. This is unfair – and unjust.

11. Anything else?

Bitcoin has improved our lives – not just financially, but also politically and intellectually.

Over the years, many Bitcoiners stuck their neck out (in some way or another). We all shared our ideas (and sometimes, our software). Most of us emerged unscathed – but others have drawn the short straw. Are we going to hang them out to dry? Back in 2014, no one knew how it would turn out – or on whom the hammer would fall.

Plus, if we wish to defend ourselves, it is often cheaper and easier to defend other similarly-situated people. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

We may reflect on all the Great Men of history, who were punished unfairly. Socrates – got the death penalty, for asking questions. Galileo – the church threatened to burn him alive (for telling the truth about planets). Jesus Christ – crucified (and killed), despite an overall message of peace and compassion. Alan Turing – invented the computer, and our industry (cryptography), and saved millions of lives – he was (more or less) tortured to death by his own British government. Had these men lived, how much better would our lives be, today? Do we want to be on the side of the ignorant and the superstitious? Or, do we want to join the Good Guys, and help them (if we can)? Let’s play a part – even a small one – in defending progress and the human spirit.

So, we hope that a few Bitcoin OGs, will give a small percentage of their stockpile of BTC. This would fund a good defense prize. And – our “prize” model will (hopefully) entice Samourai’s lawyers to hunt down a victory.

So: please donate!