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

No, it will not happen since a majority of the devs are US-based and developers in the US can't be compelled to produce speech in the USA. Neither will it matter even if someone with push commits pushes a theft-branch to the github repository, since nobody would run it.

> The question of who is forking and is who isn't raises from 50%/50% to 25%/75% until the numerator approaches zero. For the sake of networking the question isn't "whether I want to accept this patch" but "whether I think most people will accept this patch."

This is false, no. There are literally tens of thousands nodes worldwide and achieving a worldwide-jurisdiction hostile patch push when compelled speech is illegal in many developed nations would be essentially impossible, and I would be glad to bet you impossible unless Bitcoin were already dead. In any event you're presuming nobody would be able to mount a legal defence in the first place against illegal court orders.

A hardfork change of this nature literally requires global, immediate, coordinated roll-out, or it will simply fail. There's a reason why there have been no contentious hard forks in the entire history of Bitcoin.

> For the miners to have leverage with developers they need to be able to take over the code themselves. The next set of developers will have this issue, ad infinitum, unless the cycle is broken somehow.

This is a fantasist scenario, completely at odds with reality. There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars wrapped up in Bitcoin. That block of wealth and capability won't just sit there and be pushed to run something that would literally wipe them all out overnight. It's fantasist nonsense.

The scenario of one bloc or another demanding some change or other is similarly nonsensical due very specifically to the carefully-curated decentralization of Bitcoin and the nature of its consensus—again, the hard forks you are envisioning have a zero chance of being committed as locally-compelled speech, let alone by some legal jurisdiction attempting to compel tens of thousands of people worldwide into running backdoored software which literally none of them would consensually run. Like it's nonsense.

Similarly, miners who produce blocks which reassign any money without cryptographic signatures behind the money will be very simply, producing blocks which are the exact same thing as not producing blocks at all.

At this point, with the newness of your account and your odd half-blind awareness of how Bitcoin works, I'm going to presume you're not actually discussing this in good faith.

The direct counter-evidence against Craig's claimed key ownership are the facts that many of his claimed addresses signed that he was a fraud, that Wizsec showed that the 1feex address was actually stolen MtGox funds (and nothing to with Craig at all,) the court records of Klein v. Wright showing he completely made up the list of claimed addresses by instructing Shadders (a shoddy programmer from nChain) to construct the list entirely algorithmically from broken precepts.

So no, it wasn't just "one" key. It was dozens.

(Lots of addresses that Craig claimed were his, signing that Wright is a fraud): https://craigwright.lol/

(An outline of why the 1feex are entirely NOT Wright's Bitcoins): https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoi... https://blog.wizsec.jp/2020/06/mtgox-march-2011-theft.html

(An ultra-early miner, maybe the second miner, signing his own early blocks proving they aren't Craig's, either): https://twitter.com/druidian/status/1447833107143483393

You are doing a slippery thing here by claiming that your directly-falsifiable statement about Bitcoin Cash being a "precedent" where "developers control the funds"—while now in the above statement claiming that this was actually in regards to Satoshi likely not stepping up to defend his own key ownership—is somehow related.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about, or else you could show me even a single instance where Bitcoin Cash moved funds absent its owner's key signature—which is entirely what this entire thing is about, namely a court case where Wright is suing to attempt to force a backdoor into Bitcoin which would move funds specifically to his possession without a key owner's signature (or a coinbase pay.)

Finally: reasons why you don't have any idea what you're talking about, itemized:

1) You didn't know that Bitcoin Cash never moved funds without a coinbase payout or a key owner's signature but asserted it did.

2) You didn't know about the direct evidence of Craig's claimed keys being owned by other people.

3) You don't know how hard forks work because you think that hard forks can happen gradually and that pressure from minor buy-in can push it to adoption.

Aside from the DAO (which is irrelevant because Ethereum is a scam) you haven't had a very good batting average in general, and for Bitcoin, it's atrocious.

There are probably many new users of Bitcoin who don't know about Faketoshi. It's utter insanity that such lawsuits are possible, the Bitcoin community must rally to support you guys.