2 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoSo 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> the claim you are asserting is laughably false. I'm not the one asserting the claim: the plaintiff is. As I have already said, if that claim is false, the plaintiff's case collapses, since that claim, according to the appeals court, is the "essence" of the plaintiff's case.
- nullc 4y agoThe challenge there is how many millions of dollars is it fair to cost an volunteer open source developer to take such a thing to trial in order to establish a principle for a foreign countries laws? 3 million dollars? 2 million dollars?