Of regrets \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Of regrets laanwj.github.io/2023/02/06/regrets.html

12.3k sats \ 22 comments \ @cointastical 6 Feb 2023 bitcoin

view all related items

298 sats \ 0 replies \ @cointastical OP 7 Feb 2023

UPDATE

Appears he taken his github private.

An archive (thanks to Internet archive's Wayback machine) is here:

Of regrets https://web.archive.org/web/20230206230942/https://laanwj.github.io/2023/02/06/regrets.html

268 sats \ 1 reply \ @TonyGiorgio 6 Feb 2023

Licenses are a joke and so is the law and the courts. The only winning strategy is to not play. I can't believe people foolishly believe that those in power will be on our sides.

176 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 7 Feb 2023

And courts are just a theater... never accept their "invitation" to participate in their act.

https://livingintheprivate.blogspot.com/p/the-courts.html https://livingintheprivate.blogspot.com/p/the-law-vs-statutes.html https://livingintheprivate.blogspot.com/p/administrative-courts.html https://livingintheprivate.blogspot.com/p/jurisdiction-is-key.html https://livingintheprivate.blogspot.com/p/declining-to-appear.html https://livingintheprivate.blogspot.com/p/strategies-for-court.html

I never accept that invitation. I simply return it back saying: I am not that "person" in the invitation, that is a dead person. I am a living man.

405 sats \ 5 replies \ @rijndael 7 Feb 2023

I'm not a lawyer, but

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

seems pretty cut-and-dry to me. Can someone explain why that wouldn't indemnify devs?

857 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 7 Feb 2023

I am a lawyer. Different jurisdictions have different rules, and often courts do not allow rights to damages to be contracted away. Also, under common law tradition, a written document is typically strictly construed against the drafter of the document. So, in other words, if it's a close call, the party who created the document loses. Of course I'm speaking in generalities.I have no knowledge of this specific case, and I'm a U.S. lawyer. So, take what I say with giant spoonfuls of salt.

26 sats \ 0 replies \ @rijndael 7 Feb 2023

thanks for the insight!

428 sats \ 2 replies \ @jeff 7 Feb 2023

They are claiming that there is a fiduciary duty that is somehow tied to accessing their capital.

From the press release:

in my judgment there is much to be said for the submission that bitcoin developers, while acting as developers, owe fiduciary duties to the true owners of that property

There has to be a bottoms-up, community way, to prove that the devs do not possess that fiduciary duty individually or in aggregate.

If I had the time, knowledge, power & control, I would send a PR to Bitcoin Core, that transfers all of Satoshi's UTXOs to Craig Wright, cut a release, then just see if people run the node. When they don't, boom! Irrefutable proof that the devs don't have the power or fiduciary duty to restore access to the funds.

27 sats \ 0 replies \ @newnym 7 Feb 2023

I like this. You can count on me not to run that code ;)

25 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinosphere 7 Feb 2023

Hmm, for a million-coin payout, Creggy would spin up a Billion nodes using that code.

I know it wouldn't work, but boy could that cause some confusion & congestion. Best to skip this option. ;)

185 sats \ 1 reply \ @jeff 6 Feb 2023

So. Much. Rage.

26 sats \ 0 replies \ @jeff 7 Feb 2023

More: https://www.ontier.digital/post/court-of-appeal-allows-trial-to-determine-bitcoin-developer-fiduciary-duties

Tulip Trading seeks to recover £3+ billion worth of Bitcoin through a court order compelling developers to restore Tulip Trading’s access to these Bitcoin.

Couldn't we collectively give him what he wants. Then, fork?

Dr Wright is the inventor of Bitcoin who set out his vision for the digital currency in his famous White Paper under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto.

Wouldn't that statement, in most courts, not hold up, and therefore count as fraud somehow? Don't the people who purchased BSV, have claim against him?

26 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 7 Feb 2023

This has far greater implications than just those that relate to bitcoin. A judgement in CSW’s favor would force open source underground.

26 sats \ 8 replies \ @k00b 6 Feb 2023

Is this a reference to the CSW lawsuit?

569 sats \ 6 replies \ @Murch 6 Feb 2023

Yes, the lawsuit by CSW’s Seychelles company Tulip Trading against 15 Bitcoin and Altcoin developers, which initially lost in the jurisdictional challenge appears to be going to trial after CSW succeeded in an appeal.

Greg Maxwell added a lot more color here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34685029

26 sats \ 5 replies \ @jeff 6 Feb 2023

Are all 15 citizens of, or people who want to travel to, the UK?

26 sats \ 4 replies \ @Murch 6 Feb 2023

As of the original filing of the lawsuit, none of the defendants were residing in or citizens of the UK.

(And I may need to correct myself, I’ve seen reports state it was 16 defendants rather than 15.)

47 sats \ 3 replies \ @jeff 6 Feb 2023

I really don't understand how the UK could have any power over people in other countries.

If the UK summoned me to court, I just wouldn't show. Forever.

I really want to know what would happen in that scenario.

233 sats \ 2 replies \ @Murch 7 Feb 2023

Not defending yourself means that the other side wins a default judgment.

“That said, other countries will frequently enforce foreign judgements. In this case, the specific performance they're asking for would likely be unenforceable in the US (and useless regardless) -- but damages might well be enforceable.” writes Greg Maxwell on the Hackernews thread already mentioned above.

The biggest issues are that a default judgment may still financially impact the defendants, and a default judgment may establish a precedent that open source developers do owe their users duties, even when the license explicitly disclaims it like the MIT License in Bitcoin Core does.

It seems to me that fighting the lawsuit is globally less of a headache than ignoring it. As expensive it will be and as stupid as the lawsuit is.

488 sats \ 1 reply \ @Coinosphere 7 Feb 2023

Seems to me that the price of a single bullet is getting more and more impossible each day to ignore.

250 sats \ 0 replies \ @jeff 7 Feb 2023

I had the same thought.

I'd be scared if I was him, or even if I was on the legal team.

15 (or 16?) devs, each with potentially secret personal reserves and unknown alliances, 100s, maybe 1000s, of activists or activists in the making.