4 ms·

> 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

> 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).
- nullc 4y ago
  There isn't an 'official repository' -- a most popular one for sure. :) And most of the defendants have no control over it in any case (e.g. people like me that had stopped working on Bitcoin a long time ago, people whos involvement was limited to just submitting pull requests, or people who quit because what sane person voluntarily takes on this kind of harassment). Besides, if control over a particular github repository were really the criteria then Microsoft would be the most appropriate defendant :). Part of the challenge here is that in summary judgements the facts are assumed in the facts are assumed in the favor of the non-movant so if you're in court against someone who is willing to tell arbitrary lies (because, e.g. their goal isn't to win, it's just to make you fold) you're severely disadvantages when it comes to discharging the case on a summary basis.

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).

nullc 4y ago
There isn't an 'official repository' -- a most popular one for sure. :) And most of the defendants have no control over it in any case (e.g. people like me that had stopped working on Bitcoin a long time ago, people whos involvement was limited to just submitting pull requests, or people who quit because what sane person voluntarily takes on this kind of harassment). Besides, if control over a particular github repository were really the criteria then Microsoft would be the most appropriate defendant :). Part of the challenge here is that in summary judgements the facts are assumed in the facts are assumed in the favor of the non-movant so if you're in court against someone who is willing to tell arbitrary lies (because, e.g. their goal isn't to win, it's just to make you fold) you're severely disadvantages when it comes to discharging the case on a summary basis.