> owner of a domain registered at a central authority which can be compelled to turn over the domain and an anonymous contributor to a codebase Agreed. But ima

> owner of a domain registered at a central authority which can be compelled to turn over the domain and an anonymous contributor to a codebase Agreed. But imagine that there is no normie accessible place on the web to get non-malicious Bitcoin software. And anyone running a site distributing it is at risk if their identity is leaked. What effect is that going to have in the long run? "There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept." -- Bitcoin would survive in such a state, but I don't think it would be a great outcome. > The default judgment to me is a flaw in the legal system, if an anonymous party cannot defend themselves, how can an anonymous party be sued? This default judgment is a shame. Fully agreed. > He can't demand coins he doesn't even know exist, he can't even prove the coins exist to a court without keys to show that they exist. He's actually argued that he could just demand the developers issue more coins too. And he doesn't have keys, but that isn't slowing him down! The big legal flaw he exploits is that if you go to trial it can be extremely expensive (esp in the UK where you pay the other sides legal costs for every failed motion, and wright sticks a whole firm on his case). ... normally the expense of trial is protected against by preliminary motions like summary judgements. But in a summary judgement the court assumes all disputed facts favor the non-movant, and wright fills his cases with forgeries to makeup whatever disputed fact he needs to keep the case going. The huge volume of forgeries which require expert analysis and debunking also add massively to the cost of being in litigation with him. His goal isn't to win (though I'm sure he'd be happy if he did)-- his goal is to burn time and the opponents resources.