This has now happened. The court understands that the Core devs have the power to update the bitcoin code to make it treat a non-signed transaction as valid. The court also understands that it has the power to compel the Core devs to do that. This is bad.

Even if Wright loses this case, future courts can reference the judgment that was handed down on Friday. Criminal cases, sanctions, and even tax liabilities could result in the devs being dragged into court and possibly ordered to fork the blockchain in the future.

The strongest defense that I see right now is the argument that bitcoin owners and miners will rebel and refuse to use any new version that treats unsigned transactions as valid. The court needs to be convinced that this rebellion is very likely to occur, causing material financial harm to bitcoin users. The best ways that I can think of to present this to the court are:

* Explain that Craig Wright is a controversial figure who is widely hated and widely regarded as a scammer. A new version of the bitcoin software that violates the widely-loved principles of bitcoin for his benefit alone will not be regarded by the bitcoin community as a standard software update. It will not be possible to "slip it in" to the next software upgrade without users noticing.

* Explain that Ethereum users rebelled and created Ethereum Classic after an upgrade was released to remedy the DAO hack. Bitcoin users are even more committed to their principles than Ethereum users.

* Bitcoin has already forked because of segwit. Segwit was an extremely minor departure from the original bitcoin protocol. Hard-coding unsigned transactions is an extremely serious violation of the principles of bitcoin. It would be naive and negligent for the court to presume that no rebellion would occur in response to this violation.

* Bitcoin users would be asked to choose between a version of bitcoin in which their funds could not be confiscated by courts and a version in which they could. Bitcoin users do not hold courts in such high regard that they would willingly grant the courts the ability to seize their assets.

* The bitcoin community has a vision of a future in which bitcoin changes the balance of power in the world in favor of the people instead of the privileged and powerful. To grant Wright the relief he seeks, the court would need to rely on the cooperation of bitcoin users, who would be asked to sacrifice this vision. The court's ruling would be perceived by bitcoin users as an attempt to deprive future humanity of freedom and justice, and to perpetuate the rule of those who currently abuse power. It does not matter whether the court agrees with this perception. The court needs the cooperation of current bitcoin users to grant Wright the relief he seeks.

* To make these facts undeniable in the understanding of the court, the Core devs should invite relevant stakeholders including miners, holders, prominent figures and representatives of industry to submit Amicus Curiae briefs, explaining that these facts are true.

Indeed. The Core devs have not argued that it's technically impossible to do. If they had done that, then Wright would have moved the BSV funds using a hard fork and a non-signed transaction to prove that it is possible.


Yes, but Wright is claiming that they have fiduciary duties to get the court to consider the question of whether bitcoins can be seized by coercing the Core devs to hard fork the code to accept a particular non-signed transaction.

The point is that courts and governments around the world don't yet know that they have this power. They think bitcoin can't be seized because everyone says it can't. But it can, by coercing the Core devs.

Wright is trying to get the courts and governments of the world to understand this. I'm sure he'd be very happy if he won the case, but even if he loses the case, he'll achieve his goal if he gets governments to understand that they can seize bitcoins.

The devs aren't going to defy a court order. They're not criminals or fugitives. They're law-abiding citizens in good standing and they really want to stay that way.

If the court rules that the devs must hard fork and include a non-signed transaction, then they'll do it.

Some of the users will use it and some will refuse and will keep using the previous version. The two competing versions would have different blockchains after the block where the fork happened, but transactions on one chain could be replayed on the other one, as long as the coins didn't come from Craig Wright's address.

If Wright never moves the funds that he received in the non-signed transaction, then every other user's balance will be identical on the two different chains. It wouldn't make a difference if you upgraded or not.

The person who would have the ability to make balances different on the two chains would be Craig Wright. He'd have all the bitcoins that are valid on one chain and invalid on the other. He could send some of those to any other bitcoin address, and cause a difference between that address's balances on the two chains.

That would be what would happen if the people who refuse to use the new version don't change their code to prevent transaction replays. They would be the ones who would need to fork. They'd make a new coin, probably called bitcoin classic.

US courts will enforce foreign judgments if they satisfy the right conditions. The ruling in the UK is likely to be enforceable in the US.


Indeed, it hasn't happened, but if Wright wins, then it will have happened. Every government will become aware that bitcoins have been seized and bitcoins can be seized.


Businesses will accept Wright's version of bitcoin or he'll sue them and win.

If he wins, the Core devs are likely to be unable to act as devs for the version of bitcoin that doesn't include Wright's unsigned transaction.

He would sue them if they did that, claiming that they're violating their fiduciary duty to protect the value of his bitcoins.

It would need to be a new team.

No, that is not what was said at all. They're saying it is worth discussing the idea that cryptocurrency developers should bear some sort of fiduciary responsibility to their investors/users. And what jurisdiction does this actually apply to even if the answer was "yes, they do"?


Never a great basis to hang one's hat on during a legal proceeding 

But at least you can recognize it was lie.

NO NO AND NO

There are 1000s and 1000s of cases (probably 100s of 1000s) of where foreign courts have ordered things and every court in every other county said nope not going to happen.
There is not a criminal case, and more importantly there is no international agreement of even how to handle crypto. Is it physical property (painting), is it a financial asset (bond) is it physical currency (gold coin) and so on. Stop being a BSV shill believer and go back to your hole in the ground.

CW is just a scammer, and every time anybody posts thing supporting a scammer like him you are supporting him.

This will grind it's way through the courts and he will loose.

Don't go away mad, just go away.

-Dave

I hope you're right. But he's not going to lose if the Core devs are flippant and ignore the need to convince the courts.

This is a time to be serious and not engage in wishful thinking. This is a threat.

You don't like that. I understand. I don't like it either. You want to go back to sleep. Okay.

---

Yes, and those legal uncertainties, when fleshed out, may "realistically" result in the devs being required to include code that moves bitcoins without a signature.


I'm afraid not. This is fearful thinking, not wishful thinking. This is a threat. It needs to be stopped. Ignoring it is wishful thinking.


It's not him that he's claiming is the owner. It's Tulip. That's a corporation. Corporations acquire property through paperwork, not through bitcoin transactions. What he has to show the courts is paperwork, and they'll be satisfied. He'll show documents stating that ownership of that address and the funds at it have been legally transferred to Tulip.

The ownership is uncontested. Nobody else claims to own the bitcoins at that address. The court will see that the ownership is uncontested and Wright has receipts. Those are strong enough grounds to accept that Wright is the owner. If you contend that someone else owns them, you are free to present your evidence to the court.

---

How will courts and governments view Wright's case when considering their own interests?

If Wright wins, courts and governments will get control of bitcoin. If he loses, they won't (yet).

Do they want him to win or do they want him to lose?

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

Thanks for the tip!

Here is another tip, Bitcoin developer have no contractual relationship with the users, bitcoin software is open source, that's why there is no terms of service included, because the software it self is not a service, therefore the developers have no obligations to users. Furthermore they work as volunteers on the software and could at any moment quit their voluntary duty as a developer, with that being said, only some idiot you call judge/ court, would deem such claim lawful.
Bitcoin developers could actually sue CW if he manages to call them to the court, I'd suggest him to consider this fact before embarrassing himself any more.  

Edit to include this for the lawyers and judges if they missed it.
Source: https://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php