Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software • Hacker News Board

Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software

#21

Post by midmagico » Sat, Apr 29, 2023, 5:01 PM UTC

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #7

evilspammer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> seize millions of USD worth of assets you don't own, but that's the gist of it yes Technically true, but he's looking for $4 b-b-billion. Some thoughts about this that interest me: - Things like the Bitcoin Cash fork & DAO fork arguably set the precedent that the developers control the funds. They never should have done that because now anybody can argue "you did it for them, why not me?" And this time it's being a…

> Things like the Bitcoin Cash fork & DAO fork arguably set the precedent that the developers control the funds. Perhaps it made people more aware of that fact, but this was always true. Bitcoin has never been "trustless"; that's always been a mirage. (Not even the original Bitcoin whitepaper makes that claim, and it claims some pretty dubious things!)

Pfft. Its existence solely and only persists through the mass of nodes run by people who utilize the network. The only control that developers exert is over their own actions and willingness to write code. The overall community consensus to run that code is cooperative, *not* coercive.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

(edit) And you clearly never read the whitepaper: "What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party."

^^ Literally trustless right there.

Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software

#22

Post by nullc » Sat, Apr 29, 2023, 5:10 PM UTC

sowbug wrote: post #11

nadermx wrote: post #3

So I am confused, if I claim some one hacked me, I basically can forum shop, and state outlandish accusations, because "I got hacked"?

TL;DR: yes, but if outlandishness crosses over to deceit, you risk penalties. Anyone can file a lawsuit if they pay the filing fees. If they hire a lawyer, the lawyer must uphold the ethical standards of the bar, which carry suspension/disbarment penalties. Those standards generally include a good-faith belief in the legal merits of your client's case, adherence to all laws and court procedures, speaking up when you…

Wright's been civilly found to commit perjury-- but they just hit him with a fine and he keeps going. He was hit with a criminal contempt charge two decades ago for perjury and forgery in court, sentenced to 30 days in jail but he got it reduced to community service. But even if it hadn't been-- so what? He'd probably ultimately benefit from it by spinning it into a story about that time when he went to jail in for standing up for his beliefs in the face of a corrupt judge or whatever.

The main consequence of perjury in civil court is that it tends to cause you to lose. But when you're bringing cases with no serious prospect of success for collateral purposes... it doesn't really matter if you lose, and if lying is the only way you might win... The other consequences seem calibrated for otherwise upstanding people that actually care about the consequences of their actions, not for grifters using the courts as a weapon.

Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software

#23

Post by midmagico » Sat, Apr 29, 2023, 5:11 PM UTC

evilspammer wrote: post #6

smoldesu wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideally you wouldn't use it as an excuse to seize millions of USD worth of assets you don't own, but that's the gist of it yes.

> seize millions of USD worth of assets you don't own, but that's the gist of it yes Technically true, but he's looking for $4 b-b-billion. Some thoughts about this that interest me: - Things like the Bitcoin Cash fork & DAO fork arguably set the precedent that the developers control the funds. They never should have done that because now anybody can argue "you did it for them, why not me?" And this time it's being a…

That is a lie—in terms of funds being controlled specifically absent owner signatures, by the developers, how did even Bitcoin Cash set such a precedent?

In fact, there are specific counter-examples with Jeff Garzik's godmode patches which were so roundly denied and rejected that they were DOA.

Ethereum is irrelevant because of how much total premine it was and how they misrepresented it, and misrepresented the involvement of famous cryptographers like Ralph Merkle.

None of your comments about key ownership have any basis in reality or even logic, because of the direct counter-evidence of key ownership for the keys he is claiming ownership of.

So, you also have no idea what you're talking about.

Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software

#24

Post by batmaniam » Sat, Apr 29, 2023, 5:19 PM UTC

Bran_son wrote: post #19

barnbuilder wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He lost Sadly this is not true. Wright was ruled to have won the case but had the damage award reduced to only 1 pound.[1] (Wright is being bankrolled by billionaire Calvin Ayre. They are not worried about the money here.) How someone can win a case while found to have "advanced a deliberately false case and put forward deliberately false evidence until days before trial" just goes to show how utterly deranged the…

Could the deranged British legal system then be turned against those two, with equally vexatious retaliatory lawsuits? Fight fire with fire, as it were.

Except the fire is not on your side. It's on the money's side. So really, it's just money vs money. Or specifically, YOUR money vs billionaire's money.

Who do you think will win that fight? The fundamental flaw of the court system is that it's biased towards those who have money due to how politics work.

Here's food for thought, why isn't Prince Andrew in any serious trouble regarding the Epstein rapes? I don't know a single citizen who can just put their hand up and say "nope", and walk away without repercussions, unless you know, they're extremely rich. And we see that in the news again and again in every category of crimes.

The system is broken, worldwide. The only true way to fight 'fire with fire' is solidarity. Look at France, fighting together and protesting against raising the pension retirement age. It's been a month and they're still fighting. And for the government to just push that forward without regard to its populace, who do you think that action is actually for? Not the people.

Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software

#25

Post by pipes » Sat, Apr 29, 2023, 5:19 PM UTC

nullc wrote: post #20

Bran_son wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could the deranged British legal system then be turned against those two, with equally vexatious retaliatory lawsuits? Fight fire with fire, as it were.

"never wrestle with a pig – it gets mud all over you and the pig likes it". It would probably be just about as effective as piling cash and a wheelbarrow and lighting it on fire. For whatever their motivations they already seem to be intentionally racking up their legal bills as high as they possibly can. Some have suggested that since in the UK it's possible for non-attorneys to own firms that this could be used to…

What do you mean by in UK non attorneys can own firms? Of course anyone can own a firm here. I think I'm missing something.

Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software

#26

Post by nullc » Sat, Apr 29, 2023, 5:26 PM UTC

pipes wrote: post #25

nullc wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"never wrestle with a pig – it gets mud all over you and the pig likes it". It would probably be just about as effective as piling cash and a wheelbarrow and lighting it on fire. For whatever their motivations they already seem to be intentionally racking up their legal bills as high as they possibly can. Some have suggested that since in the UK it's possible for non-attorneys to own firms that this could be used to…

What do you mean by in UK non attorneys can own firms? Of course anyone can own a firm here. I think I'm missing something.

Historically, In the US ethics rules have mandated a law firm may not be owned by a non-attorney nor have fee sharing agreements with non-attornies. There has been some recent push away from that, but e.g. when they attempted it in California the legislature stepped in: https://www.advocatemagazine.com/article/2022-november/new-c...

Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software

#27

Post by wizzwizz4 » Sat, Apr 29, 2023, 5:43 PM UTC

midmagico wrote: post #21

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Things like the Bitcoin Cash fork & DAO fork arguably set the precedent that the developers control the funds. Perhaps it made people more aware of that fact, but this was always true. Bitcoin has never been "trustless"; that's always been a mirage. (Not even the original Bitcoin whitepaper makes that claim, and it claims some pretty dubious things!)

Pfft. Its existence solely and only persists through the mass of nodes run by people who utilize the network. The only control that developers exert is over their own actions and willingness to write code. The overall community consensus to run that code is cooperative, *not* coercive. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. (edit) And you clearly never read the whitepaper: "What is needed is an electr…

> The overall community consensus to run that code is cooperative, *not* coercive.

We don't disagree. Many people act like the consensus algorithm is somehow magically obviating the need for a consensus among humans. One must inherently trust that, if one is to use something like Bitcoin.

Functionally, as long as the consensus is to install the latest version of Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Core's maintainers control Bitcoin.

The whitepaper claims that Bitcoin removes the need for a trusted third-party to transactions. If you consider mining pools to be "a party", that claim isn't strictly true: on several occasions, one mining pool has held 51% hash power (e.g. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184427-one-bitcoin-group... is a notable example; before that, pools normally kept their hashing power below 30% voluntarily), so in reality, you're trusting all sufficiently-wealthy parties not to do that. However, the whitepaper doesn't make the widely-believed stronger claim about magical trustlessness.

Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software

#28

Post by UncleEntity » Sat, Apr 29, 2023, 5:46 PM UTC

batmaniam wrote: post #24

Bran_son wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could the deranged British legal system then be turned against those two, with equally vexatious retaliatory lawsuits? Fight fire with fire, as it were.

Except the fire is not on your side. It's on the money's side. So really, it's just money vs money. Or specifically, YOUR money vs billionaire's money. Who do you think will win that fight? The fundamental flaw of the court system is that it's biased towards those who have money due to how politics work. Here's food for thought, why isn't Prince Andrew in any serious trouble regarding the Epstein rapes? I don't know…

I’m confused, is the French fighting spirit supposed to symbolize the validity of the lawsuits in this analogy?

Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software

#29

Post by midmagico » Sat, Apr 29, 2023, 6:04 PM UTC

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #27

midmagico wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pfft. Its existence solely and only persists through the mass of nodes run by people who utilize the network. The only control that developers exert is over their own actions and willingness to write code. The overall community consensus to run that code is cooperative, *not* coercive. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. (edit) And you clearly never read the whitepaper: "What is needed is an electr…

> The overall community consensus to run that code is cooperative, *not* coercive. We don't disagree. Many people act like the consensus algorithm is somehow magically obviating the need for a consensus among humans. One must inherently trust that, if one is to use something like Bitcoin. Functionally, as long as the consensus is to install the latest version of Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Core's maintainers control Bitcoi…

No, that's incorrect. There is no fundamental trust; you were describing control in a coercive sense among the developers by directly asserting that developers have specific control over the funds in the system.

This is obviously not true, has never been true, and I have no trouble predicting that it will never be true.

What I took exception to was the fact that you were asserting developers themselves control funds, and that they specifically were trusted parties. Overall, Bitcoin depends on no trusted third parties, since in your example, mining pools with 50% hashrate do not arbitrarily control funds either.

And no, writing software does not imply control over the network, since there were plenty of other node implementations which existed (and exist) and which users choose to run for X or Y reasons. Writing software out of consensus which arbitrarily controls funds, in your assertion and in consistency with your string of logic (context across multiple messages,) "devs writing code" is not what consensus is. Even the github repository where Bitcoin is currently published is not current consensus. Current consensus is the current behaviour of the network right now. That is current consensus.

So, no, you're still wrong.

Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software

#30

Post by PretzelPirate » Sat, Apr 29, 2023, 6:42 PM UTC

rwmj wrote: post #13

A user on HN is one of those affected. He posted a very detailed story about his awful experience: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34685029

That's not just a HM user, that's Gregory Maxwell who was the main Bitcoin developer after Gavin Andresen left.

Maxwell has is own history of drama, but I can certainly agree with him that Craig Wright sucks.