3 ms·
The scenario given was that the defendant would argue that the coins moved due to a vulnerability in bitcoin. That's a positive statement, not a refusal to answ
by jacques_chester 7y ago
The scenario given was that the defendant would argue that the coins moved due to a vulnerability in bitcoin. That's a positive statement, not a refusal to answer.
- FDSGSG 7y agoYes, and when would a defendant be making statements under oath?
- jacques_chester 7y agoIn the "interesting legal case" that the original scenario envisaged.
- FDSGSG 7y agotestify vs argue I don't think anything in the original comment suggested that they'd be under oath, that's something you came up with.