4 ms·

Here is a link for context: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/02/03/craig-wrights-uk-case-against-16-bitcoin-developers-to-go-to-full-trial-report/ https:

Here is a link for context: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/02/03/craig-wrights-uk-case-against-16-bitcoin-developers-to-go-to-full-trial-report/ https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/02/03/craig-wrights-u...

ratg13 4y ago
If Craig Wright was Satoshi, as he claims, he should have over a million unspent btc. The only logical conclusion from fighting this battle is that Craig Wright is a liar.
- layer8 4y ago
  Or he forgot his wallet password. ;)
  - peppermint_gum 4y ago
    This is pretty much what this lawsuit is about. He claims that it's bitcoin developers' fault that he lost access to "his" billions and they should restore it somehow.
rom-antics 4y ago
> In 2021, the London High Court gave Craig Wright's lawyers permission to serve papers to the 16 developers, even if they don't reside in the U.K. So what happens if they just don't show up to court? Sure you'll lose by default judgment, and then you can ignore the judgment, right? If I got a court summons from some random country like Sudan or Botswana or the UK I would just ignore it. How could that backfire assuming I don't plan on traveling to Sudan in my lifetime?
- jahewson 4y ago
  The smart move would be for them to club together and go and win in court, this case seems pretty ridiculous and the premise is very flimsy. Having a loss like this on the books and in case law would be harmful to the ongoing concerns of bitcoin.
- kanzure 4y ago
  UK != Sudan, and there's weapons like extradition, sanctions, property seizure, garnishment, cross-jurisdiction suits, international travel restrictions on an ongoing indefinite basis, etc.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    Extradition for civil matters? I don’t believe it.
- elorm 4y ago
  Sudan or Botswana ? You could definitely ignore. The UK government ? Not so much. If the case has enough clout and import, the UK government has enough “multilateral conventions and bilateral extradition treaties” to make your life really miserable.
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    You should edit your post to "living hell for all eternity"
jallen_dot_dev 4y ago
> The claim alleges that the developers owe "fiduciary duties" and "duties in tort" to re-write or amend protocol code in order to give Wright access to 111,000 bitcoin I suppose a court could compel core devs to accept such a change, if it came to that. But how could a court compel Bitcoin node operators to run that version of the software? That's what would actually need to happen, to give someone back their coins (or rather, a version of their coins that most people actually value). Wright could make the change himself (or get someone else to do it) because the software is open source. It's getting everyone else to run the software that matters.
- kanzure 4y ago
  I think "a judgement against developers, but nobody runs the compulsion code" is still a pretty bad place to be in terms of precedent and it's safely in the territory of financial ruin for most developers.
  - jallen_dot_dev 4y ago
    Absolutely agree, I'm just thinking the suit is frivolous for that reason. The defendants don't have the ability (mind control over everyone who runs Bitcoin software) to fulfill a duty if they had one.
  - flir 4y ago
    Might make a nice demo in court though? "Here's the code he wants, I've written it, he's welcome to it. Now you just have to get 13k nodes worldwide to run it. I can't do that. Good luck."
- chippiewill 4y ago
  > But how could a court compel Bitcoin node operators to run that version of the software? There's a plausible claim that the Bitcoin developers exert enough control over the Bitcoin network through their control of the official repository that operators would just accept it. The claim has not been proven (and I think we all know that it wouldn't), but the court of appeals has correctly determined that it isn't their place to summarily decide that it wouldn't and that it needs to go to trial. The court would not compel node operators (there's been absolutely zero entertainment of the idea that node operators are fiduciaries).
pdonis 4y ago
Was the Bitcoin code that the lawsuit is about MIT licensed?
- _alex_ 4y ago
  yes
themoonisachees 4y ago
Wait, not only is this batshit insane, the guy used to pretend he was satoshi nakamoto? Surely the actual satoshi nakamoto would have the knowledge to implement this, and also know that it would efectively be the D.A.O 2.0?

ratg13 4y ago

If Craig Wright was Satoshi, as he claims, he should have over a million unspent btc. The only logical conclusion from fighting this battle is that Craig Wright is a liar.

layer8 4y ago
Or he forgot his wallet password. ;)
- peppermint_gum 4y ago
  This is pretty much what this lawsuit is about. He claims that it's bitcoin developers' fault that he lost access to "his" billions and they should restore it somehow.

rom-antics 4y ago

> In 2021, the London High Court gave Craig Wright's lawyers permission to serve papers to the 16 developers, even if they don't reside in the U.K. So what happens if they just don't show up to court? Sure you'll lose by default judgment, and then you can ignore the judgment, right? If I got a court summons from some random country like Sudan or Botswana or the UK I would just ignore it. How could that backfire assuming I don't plan on traveling to Sudan in my lifetime?

jahewson 4y ago
The smart move would be for them to club together and go and win in court, this case seems pretty ridiculous and the premise is very flimsy. Having a loss like this on the books and in case law would be harmful to the ongoing concerns of bitcoin.
kanzure 4y ago
UK != Sudan, and there's weapons like extradition, sanctions, property seizure, garnishment, cross-jurisdiction suits, international travel restrictions on an ongoing indefinite basis, etc.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  Extradition for civil matters? I don’t believe it.
elorm 4y ago
Sudan or Botswana ? You could definitely ignore. The UK government ? Not so much. If the case has enough clout and import, the UK government has enough “multilateral conventions and bilateral extradition treaties” to make your life really miserable.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  You should edit your post to "living hell for all eternity"

jallen_dot_dev 4y ago

> The claim alleges that the developers owe "fiduciary duties" and "duties in tort" to re-write or amend protocol code in order to give Wright access to 111,000 bitcoin I suppose a court could compel core devs to accept such a change, if it came to that. But how could a court compel Bitcoin node operators to run that version of the software? That's what would actually need to happen, to give someone back their coins (or rather, a version of their coins that most people actually value). Wright could make the change himself (or get someone else to do it) because the software is open source. It's getting everyone else to run the software that matters.

kanzure 4y ago
I think "a judgement against developers, but nobody runs the compulsion code" is still a pretty bad place to be in terms of precedent and it's safely in the territory of financial ruin for most developers.
- jallen_dot_dev 4y ago
  Absolutely agree, I'm just thinking the suit is frivolous for that reason. The defendants don't have the ability (mind control over everyone who runs Bitcoin software) to fulfill a duty if they had one.
- flir 4y ago
  Might make a nice demo in court though? "Here's the code he wants, I've written it, he's welcome to it. Now you just have to get 13k nodes worldwide to run it. I can't do that. Good luck."
chippiewill 4y ago
> But how could a court compel Bitcoin node operators to run that version of the software? There's a plausible claim that the Bitcoin developers exert enough control over the Bitcoin network through their control of the official repository that operators would just accept it. The claim has not been proven (and I think we all know that it wouldn't), but the court of appeals has correctly determined that it isn't their place to summarily decide that it wouldn't and that it needs to go to trial. The court would not compel node operators (there's been absolutely zero entertainment of the idea that node operators are fiduciaries).

pdonis 4y ago

Was the Bitcoin code that the lawsuit is about MIT licensed?

_alex_ 4y ago
yes

themoonisachees 4y ago

Wait, not only is this batshit insane, the guy used to pretend he was satoshi nakamoto? Surely the actual satoshi nakamoto would have the knowledge to implement this, and also know that it would efectively be the D.A.O 2.0?