Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software
1–10 of 52 posts
Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software
#2Craig Wright is such a gigantic tool. Anyone that puts an ounce of weight behind a single word of his is an even bigger tool. Sue me.
Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software
#3So I am confused, if I claim some one hacked me, I basically can forum shop, and state outlandish accusations, because "I got hacked"?
Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software
#4So I am confused, if I claim some one hacked me, I basically can forum shop, and state outlandish accusations, because "I got hacked"?
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.
Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software
#5[deleted]
Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software
#6So I am confused, if I claim some one hacked me, I basically can forum shop, and state outlandish accusations, because "I got hacked"?
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 argued in the legal domain instead of just on heated GitHub comments. Judges aren't known for understanding the details of blockchains and can probably swing either way on this, especially if you jurisdiction shop.
- The "assets you don't own" part. He can't prove he had the keys, or lost the keys. But he just needs to present a compelling argument, not have an argument beyond a shadow of a doubt. The fact that the real Satoshi is unlikely to appear to defend themself makes it easier for Wright to argue Wright had the keys at some point, even if he wasn't the first or last owner.
- Combining these points: If you have established you will change the blockchain through a compelling argument; and if _nobody_ presents the keys; but if you have the best compelling argument _without_ the keys, then the coins probably belong to you.
- The big problems that lead to this situation were opening the Pandora's box of blockchain forks; & the tying of physical identities to wallets through KYC (which was the death of BTC.)
Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software
#7Earlier 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…
> 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!)
Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software
#8Earlier 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…
> Things like the Bitcoin Cash fork & DAO fork arguably set the precedent that the developers control the funds.
The DAO fork is a good example, but the Bitcoin Cash fork is not a good example as the developers did nothing with any of the funds. That was just a normal fork that created a new cryptocurrency.
Maybe you're thinking of Craig Wright's own Bictoin fork, Bitcoin SV?
> If you have established you will change the blockchain through a compelling, non-technical argument; and if _nobody_ presents the keys; but if you have the best compelling argument, they _probably_ belong to you.
I get that it's what he's going for, but one of the keys he has claimed was his has already signed a message claiming Wright is a fraud:
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2020/05/25/craig-wright-call...
Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software
#9Earlier 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…
The DAO fork never would have hit production if users had not been chosen to run it. The software update even had a switch people had to set, choosing whether to run the fork or not.
The Parity project later requested a rescue attempt for themselves and their wallet users, and the community strongly resisted the idea. Parity was run by a cofounder of Ethereum, and the issue was way more clear than someone claiming without proof that they'd lost their keys; if Parity couldn't get a rescue done, it's not likely to happen again for anyone else.
Certainly it'd be difficult to get an international community to bend to the demands of a court in one jurisdiction. Even if they forced the issue in that one jurisdiction, it'd just be a fork, probably with little value.
Re: Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund is fighting for the future of open source software
#10Craig Wright, the guy who brought this lawsuit, has been suing people left and right for years.
He lost a high profile case last year against a podcaster who called him a fraud. The judge ruled against Wright and found that he had "advanced a deliberately false case and put forward deliberately false evidence until days before trial".