Given that $50B are at stake, I could see things getting weird.
CSW knew he would never convince Bitcoin, so he decided to use the State to force the return of coins that do not belong to him. Only his sycophants in BSV would agree to such treachery.
Which in itself should be more evidence that this man is not Satoshi.
Dec 7, 2021 Bcash price, $481.53 (approx 0.00944385 BTC)
Today, it has 0.74% of the Bitcoin hashrate.
Since its creation, it has lost 92% of its value in Bitcoin. So yes, bcash is awful. Don't touch the affinity scams.
Node: “No”
Sam: *ICBM rolls out*
(I’m not saying they would, I’m saying they could).
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm skeptical that a judge's ruling could force Congress or the President to deploy intercontinental ballistic missiles. I don't think that's ever happened, and (as you say) this won't be the time it does.
I mean, Uncle Sam isn’t an actual person either.
In case it's not clear, even if the court did this and was able to enforce it, they would still need to enforce it outside of the country too, where, if I'm not mistaken, the majority of miners are.
I confess I replied something through a lens of personal irritation: For years the Bitcoin ecosystem has treated wright like a troll "he just wants attention, ignore him" -- but in doing so it's really enabled his fraud to grow and become a big problem.
So you triggered thought of people switching to a "oh it's good if he obliterates these people, it'll prove Bitcoin is anti-fragile!" ... well, sorry for being cynical. :)
Bitcoin absolutely would survive his attack here, whatever happens. Though it may be a setback, e.g. if it creates a big incentive against people of high capability, integrity, and experience to contributing to maintaining the software.
What would happen, worst case scenario, is that the "official" codebase gets code included to give him his rightfully owned monies, but an unmolested "fork" would be adopted by the network and continue on as the widely used codebase, probably contributed to by the same people, possibly under pseudonyms to prevent this horse shit in the future.
The US frowns on compelled speech and compelled labor. :)
> but he can't force the miners to use that codebase.
Miners aren't the relevant party of interest-- users are. He can't force users to adopt a version of Bitcoin that allows blocks which steal coins.
> What would happen, worst case scenario, is that the "official" codebase gets code included to give him his rightfully owned monies
Nah, that wouldn't happen. That repository would be shut off before that would happen, not only for ethical reasons but because anyone who distributed such maliciously backdoored software would be exposed to litigation by everyone else, especially if Wright established that in practice open source developers could be found civilly liable even though their license has a hard bar against that kind of liability.
> but an unmolested "fork" would be adopted by the network and continue on as the widely used codebase
Indeed, there are already many forks and alternative versions.
> probably contributed to by the same people, possibly under pseudonyms to prevent this horse shit in the future
That I doubt. It's not worth it to take the risk of millions of dollars of legal fees to contribute to a volunteer open source project.
Even if the wealth tax is 90%, 10% of $50B is a lot better than 0% of $50B.