3 ms·

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 ne

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.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > There is no such entity as Bitcoin By "Bitcoin", I mean the Bitcoin developers, since they are the ones the plaintiff is making the fiduciary responsibility claim against. > it doesn't but it's fair to say that the plaintiff has asserted it does And if the plaintiff's claim to that effect is false, their case collapses, since that claim is, as the quote I gave from the appellate court opinion makes clear, the "essence" of the plaintiff's case. That's all I am trying to make clear: that the plaintiff's case is based on its claim about the Bitcoin developers' control of the software version the network uses, not on a simple claim that the Bitcoin client software is released as open source.
    - sidewndr46 4y ago
      So the guy who corrected the function documentation and submitted one line patch changing "it's" to "its" (a common English mistake) is now "Bitcoin"? Also the claim you are asserting is laughably false. There is no magic button the developers have that can just force everyone to run their software.

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.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > There is no such entity as Bitcoin By "Bitcoin", I mean the Bitcoin developers, since they are the ones the plaintiff is making the fiduciary responsibility claim against. > it doesn't but it's fair to say that the plaintiff has asserted it does And if the plaintiff's claim to that effect is false, their case collapses, since that claim is, as the quote I gave from the appellate court opinion makes clear, the "essence" of the plaintiff's case. That's all I am trying to make clear: that the plaintiff's case is based on its claim about the Bitcoin developers' control of the software version the network uses, not on a simple claim that the Bitcoin client software is released as open source.
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    So the guy who corrected the function documentation and submitted one line patch changing "it's" to "its" (a common English mistake) is now "Bitcoin"? Also the claim you are asserting is laughably false. There is no magic button the developers have that can just force everyone to run their software.