4 ms·

As far as licenses like the MIT license are concerned, though, the question would not be whether a fiduciary duty exists in this case, but whether that duty is

by pdonis 4y ago

As far as licenses like the MIT license are concerned, though, the question would not be whether a fiduciary duty exists in this case, but whether that duty is based on the software license. Since Bitcoin involves financial instruments, I would think it much more likely that any claim of fiduciary duty would have to be because the Bitcoin developers or their organization are performing financial functions, not because of any open source software they are providing. So I'm not sure even a ruling against Bitcoin in this case (which of course I hope does not happen) would automatically make every open source developer in the world a fiduciary of every one of their users, regardless of license disclaimers. Edit: The appeals court opinion that was posted elsewhere in this thread appears to bear out what I said above. Paragraph 40 of the ruling says: "The essence of Tulip’s case is that the result of all this is that the developers, having undertaken to control the software of the relevant bitcoin network, thereby have and exercise control over the property held by others (i.e. bitcoin), and that this has the result in law that they owe fiduciary duties to the true owners of that property with the result that, on the facts of this case, they are obliged to introduce a software patch along the lines described above, and help Tulip recover its property." In other words, Tulip is claiming (rightly or wrongly) that Bitcoin is its fiduciary because Bitcoin controls what version of the software is used on their network, and therefore controls how Bitcoin assets, which are valuable property, are transferred from one party to another. That's a straightforward financial argument and does not have anything to do with any software license. It certainly doesn't imply that any open source developer assumes a fiduciary duty merely by publicly releasing software.

sidewndr46 4y ago
It most definitely does establish that any open source developer has fiduciary duty. Bitcoin is not financial software. It's nothing more than a peer to peer network with a novel consensus algorithm. With this precedent you could effectively sue BitTorrent developers for not modifying the code to keep backups of your data.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > Bitcoin is not financial software. The software itself is not; but Bitcoin's control over what version of the software gets used on its network is a financial function, since it controls how financial assets (Bitcoin holdings) get transferred from one party to another. And that function is the basis for the claim of fiduciary duty, not the fact that Bitcoin publishes its software as open source. > It's nothing more than a peer to peer network with a novel consensus algorithm. The software itself is, yes. But the network is more than that: it has a particular party, Bitcoin, that controls what version of the software is accepted on the network. That control is what the plaintiff in the lawsuit is claiming as a basis for a fiduciary duty. > With this precedent you could effectively sue BitTorrent developers for not modifying the code to keep backups of your data. No, you can't, because there is no corresponding financial function provided by the BitTorrent developers. They don't control where you download files from or where you store them.
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    So the UK recognizes Bitcoin as legal tender?
    - pdonis 4y ago
      Not to my knowledge, but that's irrelevant to the financial claims that the plaintiff is making. (To be clear, I'm not saying I agree with the plaintiff's claims; I'm just trying to be clear about exactly what those claims are and are not.)
  - nullc 4y ago
    > not the fact that Bitcoin publishes its software as open source. There is no such entity as Bitcoin, fwiw. Bitcoin is a protocol, a language, spoken by users (or more precisely, their computers) to bring about the bitcoin system. Like Roberts rules of order bring about a meeting. Bitcoin isn't the only system resulting from the software we wrote-- many people have created alternatives using the same software. > But the network is more than that: it has a particular party, Bitcoin, that controls what version of the software is accepted on the network. Well it doesn't but it's fair to say that the plaintiff has asserted it does. > That control is what the plaintiff in the lawsuit is claiming as a basis for a fiduciary duty. What the plaintiff didn't do is give any coherent argument for this control existing or even explaining why it isn't the plaintiff itself that has it (after all, he claims to be the creator of the system). > No, you can't, because there is no corresponding financial function provided by the BitTorrent developers. They don't control where you download files from or where you store them. Nor does anything with Bitcoin.

by pdonis 4y ago

sidewndr46 4y ago

It most definitely does establish that any open source developer has fiduciary duty. Bitcoin is not financial software. It's nothing more than a peer to peer network with a novel consensus algorithm. With this precedent you could effectively sue BitTorrent developers for not modifying the code to keep backups of your data.

pdonis 4y ago
> Bitcoin is not financial software. The software itself is not; but Bitcoin's control over what version of the software gets used on its network is a financial function, since it controls how financial assets (Bitcoin holdings) get transferred from one party to another. And that function is the basis for the claim of fiduciary duty, not the fact that Bitcoin publishes its software as open source. > It's nothing more than a peer to peer network with a novel consensus algorithm. The software itself is, yes. But the network is more than that: it has a particular party, Bitcoin, that controls what version of the software is accepted on the network. That control is what the plaintiff in the lawsuit is claiming as a basis for a fiduciary duty. > With this precedent you could effectively sue BitTorrent developers for not modifying the code to keep backups of your data. No, you can't, because there is no corresponding financial function provided by the BitTorrent developers. They don't control where you download files from or where you store them.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  So the UK recognizes Bitcoin as legal tender?
  - pdonis 4y ago
    Not to my knowledge, but that's irrelevant to the financial claims that the plaintiff is making. (To be clear, I'm not saying I agree with the plaintiff's claims; I'm just trying to be clear about exactly what those claims are and are not.)
- nullc 4y ago
  > not the fact that Bitcoin publishes its software as open source. There is no such entity as Bitcoin, fwiw. Bitcoin is a protocol, a language, spoken by users (or more precisely, their computers) to bring about the bitcoin system. Like Roberts rules of order bring about a meeting. Bitcoin isn't the only system resulting from the software we wrote-- many people have created alternatives using the same software. > But the network is more than that: it has a particular party, Bitcoin, that controls what version of the software is accepted on the network. Well it doesn't but it's fair to say that the plaintiff has asserted it does. > That control is what the plaintiff in the lawsuit is claiming as a basis for a fiduciary duty. What the plaintiff didn't do is give any coherent argument for this control existing or even explaining why it isn't the plaintiff itself that has it (after all, he claims to be the creator of the system). > No, you can't, because there is no corresponding financial function provided by the BitTorrent developers. They don't control where you download files from or where you store them. Nor does anything with Bitcoin.