5 ms·

I wonder if we never find the original keys for this crypto, if he is declared the legal owner he will be able to somehow force ownership of this crypto via som

I wonder if we never find the original keys for this crypto, if he is declared the legal owner he will be able to somehow force ownership of this crypto via some type of forced code change in the Bitcoin blockchain? Given that $50B are at stake, I could see things getting weird.

jstx1 5y ago
You don't get to make a forced change to Bitcoin's code unilaterally, the rest of the network has to accept the change.
- ben_w 5y ago
  Uncle Sam: “Accept this change” Node: “No” Sam: *ICBM rolls out* (I’m not saying they would, I’m saying they could).
  - jstx1 5y ago
    There isn't a single node to point to, it's a globally distributed network.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      And?
      - gizdan 5y ago
        So you think they'll send ballistic missiles throughout the whole world? Including China, Russia, UK, Germany, France? All of whom have nukes? Good luck with that.
        ben_w 5y ago
        I very explicitly didn’t say they would. I’m saying they could, and implicitly that if America was so inclined it can menace basically anyone and any nation just by pointing at their massive collection of pointy things that hurt.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - BeFlatXIII 5y ago
    Hopefully the next step is that those coins were in another nation with their own ICBM stockpile so that we can end the whole humanity experiment once and for all.
  - karaterobot 5y ago
    > (I’m not saying they would, I’m saying they could). I'm not a lawyer, but I'm skeptical that a judge's ruling could force Congress or the President to deploy intercontinental ballistic missiles. I don't think that's ever happened, and (as you say) this won't be the time it does.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      It’s a deliberately extreme example to show that one can force changes to anything if you have a big enough stick. I mean, Uncle Sam isn’t an actual person either.
  - becuz99h 5y ago
    They can’t even literally over something so contrived. Little boys playing math games in a computer that isn’t directly controlling anything interesting doesn’t really matter to people who control ICBMs. Crypto gets headlines because politically connected people make money off it. As soon as that’s not true, crypto becomes worthless.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    "Where's the giant Mansley?" [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42W9ZCn-M1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42W9ZCn-M1g
  - maccolgan 5y ago
    Yeah, US should actually start engaging in state sponsored terrorism and engage in piracy to make money, it'd be even more profitable than giving a total scammer 50B$ by deploying ICBMs all over the world.
ben_w 5y ago
I wonder how that would shake out in practice. Everyone in US required to use one fork with such a change, everyone else in the world ignoring it?
- adventured 5y ago
  It would never arrive at practice.
ceejayoz 5y ago
I'd bet he sings a different tune if the UK ever institutes a wealth tax.
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  What? Why? Even if the wealth tax is 90%, 10% of $50B is a lot better than 0% of $50B.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Unless you think he's actually Satoshi, he doesn't actually have access to the $50B, so even a 1% wealth tax would require him to pay $500M... which he doesn't have.
    - kristjansson 5y ago
      This verdict already requires he pay $1e8, which presumably he doesn't have?
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        I'd rather be dodging a private creditor than a nation-state with the power to revoke my passport, though.
        nullc 5y ago
        Wright is already prepped for further flight. After fleeing from AU he obtained an antiguan passport.
thebean11 5y ago
A court would have to force Bitcoin users and miners to run a patched version of the software that unlocks those coins. Not likely to work; it's in literally every other Bitcoin user's best interest that those 1.1M coins don't move.
- gizdan 5y ago
  > A court would have to force Bitcoin users and miners In case it's not clear, even if the court did this and was able to enforce it, they would still need to enforce it outside of the country too, where, if I'm not mistaken, the majority of miners are.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    I'd actually love to see CW win this case, because it would prove definitively that bitcoin cannot be regulated.
    - nullc 5y ago
      So you're okay with a dozen of Bitcoin's longest standing developers being personally bankrupted?
      - betwixthewires 5y ago
        No, I'm not. When I say "I'd love to see" I'm of course being facetious. Of course I don't want these individuals (including yourself) to be held liable personally to him. But if he did win, he wouldn't get the coins, and it would demonstrate that bitcoin cannot be forcibly regulated.
        nullc 5y ago
        Yeah, I'm with you. Sorry for the defensive response! I confess I replied something through a lens of personal irritation: For years the Bitcoin ecosystem has treated wright like a troll "he just wants attention, ignore him" -- but in doing so it's really enabled his fraud to grow and become a big problem. So you triggered thought of people switching to a "oh it's good if he obliterates these people, it'll prove Bitcoin is anti-fragile!" ... well, sorry for being cynical. :) Bitcoin absolutely would survive his attack here, whatever happens. Though it may be a setback, e.g. if it creates a big incentive against people of high capability, integrity, and experience to contributing to maintaining the software.
rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
There is $0 at stake, because CSW is not Satoshi. A hard fork to steal coins was his goal all along, with forking Bcash into BSV. CSW knew he would never convince Bitcoin, so he decided to use the State to force the return of coins that do not belong to him. Only his sycophants in BSV would agree to such treachery. Which in itself should be more evidence that this man is not Satoshi.
- lawn 5y ago
  > forking Bcash https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/why-some-people-call-bitcoin-cash-bcash-this-will-be-shocking-to-new-readers-956558da12fb https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/why-some-people-call-bit...
  - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
    Sep 18, 2017 BCash price, $471.09 (approx 0.12 BTC) Dec 7, 2021 Bcash price, $481.53 (approx 0.00944385 BTC) Today, it has 0.74% of the Bitcoin hashrate. Since its creation, it has lost 92% of its value in Bitcoin. So yes, bcash is awful. Don't touch the affinity scams.
delusional 5y ago
Apparently he sued for that back in May https://www.reuters.com/technology/australias-wright-launches-lawsuit-over-57-bln-bitcoin-haul-2021-05-12/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/australias-wright-launche...
lawn 5y ago
There's already signed proof on the blockchain saying that Craig Wright is a fraud, from blocks that Craig Wright claimed to have mined: https://craigwrightisnotsatoshi.com/ https://craigwrightisnotsatoshi.com/
Geee 5y ago
They could force exchanges to hand over funds from those addresses, if they're ever deposited there. Forcing a hard fork is not practically possible.
betwixthewires 5y ago
He might be able to compel contributors to fork the code on his behalf, but he can't force the miners to use that codebase. He cannot compel a fork of the chain, only of the codebase. What would happen, worst case scenario, is that the "official" codebase gets code included to give him his rightfully owned monies, but an unmolested "fork" would be adopted by the network and continue on as the widely used codebase, probably contributed to by the same people, possibly under pseudonyms to prevent this horse shit in the future.
- nullc 5y ago
  > He might be able to compel contributors to fork the code on his behalf The US frowns on compelled speech and compelled labor. :) > but he can't force the miners to use that codebase. Miners aren't the relevant party of interest-- users are. He can't force users to adopt a version of Bitcoin that allows blocks which steal coins. > What would happen, worst case scenario, is that the "official" codebase gets code included to give him his rightfully owned monies Nah, that wouldn't happen. That repository would be shut off before that would happen, not only for ethical reasons but because anyone who distributed such maliciously backdoored software would be exposed to litigation by everyone else, especially if Wright established that in practice open source developers could be found civilly liable even though their license has a hard bar against that kind of liability. > but an unmolested "fork" would be adopted by the network and continue on as the widely used codebase Indeed, there are already many forks and alternative versions. > probably contributed to by the same people, possibly under pseudonyms to prevent this horse shit in the future That I doubt. It's not worth it to take the risk of millions of dollars of legal fees to contribute to a volunteer open source project.

jstx1 5y ago

You don't get to make a forced change to Bitcoin's code unilaterally, the rest of the network has to accept the change.

ben_w 5y ago
Uncle Sam: “Accept this change” Node: “No” Sam: *ICBM rolls out* (I’m not saying they would, I’m saying they could).
- jstx1 5y ago
  There isn't a single node to point to, it's a globally distributed network.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    And?
    - gizdan 5y ago
      So you think they'll send ballistic missiles throughout the whole world? Including China, Russia, UK, Germany, France? All of whom have nukes? Good luck with that.
      - ben_w 5y ago
        I very explicitly didn’t say they would. I’m saying they could, and implicitly that if America was so inclined it can menace basically anyone and any nation just by pointing at their massive collection of pointy things that hurt.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  Hopefully the next step is that those coins were in another nation with their own ICBM stockpile so that we can end the whole humanity experiment once and for all.
- karaterobot 5y ago
  > (I’m not saying they would, I’m saying they could). I'm not a lawyer, but I'm skeptical that a judge's ruling could force Congress or the President to deploy intercontinental ballistic missiles. I don't think that's ever happened, and (as you say) this won't be the time it does.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    It’s a deliberately extreme example to show that one can force changes to anything if you have a big enough stick. I mean, Uncle Sam isn’t an actual person either.
- becuz99h 5y ago
  They can’t even literally over something so contrived. Little boys playing math games in a computer that isn’t directly controlling anything interesting doesn’t really matter to people who control ICBMs. Crypto gets headlines because politically connected people make money off it. As soon as that’s not true, crypto becomes worthless.
- jjk166 5y ago
  "Where's the giant Mansley?" [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42W9ZCn-M1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42W9ZCn-M1g
- maccolgan 5y ago
  Yeah, US should actually start engaging in state sponsored terrorism and engage in piracy to make money, it'd be even more profitable than giving a total scammer 50B$ by deploying ICBMs all over the world.

ben_w 5y ago

I wonder how that would shake out in practice. Everyone in US required to use one fork with such a change, everyone else in the world ignoring it?

adventured 5y ago
It would never arrive at practice.

ceejayoz 5y ago

I'd bet he sings a different tune if the UK ever institutes a wealth tax.

AlexandrB 5y ago
What? Why? Even if the wealth tax is 90%, 10% of $50B is a lot better than 0% of $50B.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Unless you think he's actually Satoshi, he doesn't actually have access to the $50B, so even a 1% wealth tax would require him to pay $500M... which he doesn't have.
  - kristjansson 5y ago
    This verdict already requires he pay $1e8, which presumably he doesn't have?
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      I'd rather be dodging a private creditor than a nation-state with the power to revoke my passport, though.
      - nullc 5y ago
        Wright is already prepped for further flight. After fleeing from AU he obtained an antiguan passport.

thebean11 5y ago

A court would have to force Bitcoin users and miners to run a patched version of the software that unlocks those coins. Not likely to work; it's in literally every other Bitcoin user's best interest that those 1.1M coins don't move.

gizdan 5y ago
> A court would have to force Bitcoin users and miners In case it's not clear, even if the court did this and was able to enforce it, they would still need to enforce it outside of the country too, where, if I'm not mistaken, the majority of miners are.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  I'd actually love to see CW win this case, because it would prove definitively that bitcoin cannot be regulated.
  - nullc 5y ago
    So you're okay with a dozen of Bitcoin's longest standing developers being personally bankrupted?
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      No, I'm not. When I say "I'd love to see" I'm of course being facetious. Of course I don't want these individuals (including yourself) to be held liable personally to him. But if he did win, he wouldn't get the coins, and it would demonstrate that bitcoin cannot be forcibly regulated.
      - nullc 5y ago
        Yeah, I'm with you. Sorry for the defensive response! I confess I replied something through a lens of personal irritation: For years the Bitcoin ecosystem has treated wright like a troll "he just wants attention, ignore him" -- but in doing so it's really enabled his fraud to grow and become a big problem. So you triggered thought of people switching to a "oh it's good if he obliterates these people, it'll prove Bitcoin is anti-fragile!" ... well, sorry for being cynical. :) Bitcoin absolutely would survive his attack here, whatever happens. Though it may be a setback, e.g. if it creates a big incentive against people of high capability, integrity, and experience to contributing to maintaining the software.

rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago

There is $0 at stake, because CSW is not Satoshi. A hard fork to steal coins was his goal all along, with forking Bcash into BSV. CSW knew he would never convince Bitcoin, so he decided to use the State to force the return of coins that do not belong to him. Only his sycophants in BSV would agree to such treachery. Which in itself should be more evidence that this man is not Satoshi.

lawn 5y ago
> forking Bcash https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/why-some-people-call-bitcoin-cash-bcash-this-will-be-shocking-to-new-readers-956558da12fb https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/why-some-people-call-bit...
- rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
  Sep 18, 2017 BCash price, $471.09 (approx 0.12 BTC) Dec 7, 2021 Bcash price, $481.53 (approx 0.00944385 BTC) Today, it has 0.74% of the Bitcoin hashrate. Since its creation, it has lost 92% of its value in Bitcoin. So yes, bcash is awful. Don't touch the affinity scams.

delusional 5y ago

Apparently he sued for that back in May https://www.reuters.com/technology/australias-wright-launches-lawsuit-over-57-bln-bitcoin-haul-2021-05-12/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/australias-wright-launche...

lawn 5y ago

There's already signed proof on the blockchain saying that Craig Wright is a fraud, from blocks that Craig Wright claimed to have mined: https://craigwrightisnotsatoshi.com/ https://craigwrightisnotsatoshi.com/

Geee 5y ago

They could force exchanges to hand over funds from those addresses, if they're ever deposited there. Forcing a hard fork is not practically possible.

betwixthewires 5y ago

He might be able to compel contributors to fork the code on his behalf, but he can't force the miners to use that codebase. He cannot compel a fork of the chain, only of the codebase. What would happen, worst case scenario, is that the "official" codebase gets code included to give him his rightfully owned monies, but an unmolested "fork" would be adopted by the network and continue on as the widely used codebase, probably contributed to by the same people, possibly under pseudonyms to prevent this horse shit in the future.

nullc 5y ago
> He might be able to compel contributors to fork the code on his behalf The US frowns on compelled speech and compelled labor. :) > but he can't force the miners to use that codebase. Miners aren't the relevant party of interest-- users are. He can't force users to adopt a version of Bitcoin that allows blocks which steal coins. > What would happen, worst case scenario, is that the "official" codebase gets code included to give him his rightfully owned monies Nah, that wouldn't happen. That repository would be shut off before that would happen, not only for ethical reasons but because anyone who distributed such maliciously backdoored software would be exposed to litigation by everyone else, especially if Wright established that in practice open source developers could be found civilly liable even though their license has a hard bar against that kind of liability. > but an unmolested "fork" would be adopted by the network and continue on as the widely used codebase Indeed, there are already many forks and alternative versions. > probably contributed to by the same people, possibly under pseudonyms to prevent this horse shit in the future That I doubt. It's not worth it to take the risk of millions of dollars of legal fees to contribute to a volunteer open source project.