2 ms·
> 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 c
by 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 agoThere 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.