Hacker News Reader

Comment by asperous | Hacker News Reader

Here is a link for context:

https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/02/03/craig-wrights-u...

> The claim alleges that the developers owe "fiduciary duties" and "duties in tort" to re-write or amend protocol code in order to give Wright access to 111,000 bitcoin

I suppose a court could compel core devs to accept such a change, if it came to that. But how could a court compel Bitcoin node operators to run that version of the software? That's what would actually need to happen, to give someone back their coins (or rather, a version of their coins that most people actually value).

Wright could make the change himself (or get someone else to do it) because the software is open source. It's getting everyone else to run the software that matters.

I think "a judgement against developers, but nobody runs the compulsion code" is still a pretty bad place to be in terms of precedent and it's safely in the territory of financial ruin for most developers.

Might make a nice demo in court though?

"Here's the code he wants, I've written it, he's welcome to it. Now you just have to get 13k nodes worldwide to run it. I can't do that. Good luck."

Absolutely agree, I'm just thinking the suit is frivolous for that reason. The defendants don't have the ability (mind control over everyone who runs Bitcoin software) to fulfill a duty if they had one.

> But how could a court compel Bitcoin node operators to run that version of the software?

There's a plausible claim that the Bitcoin developers exert enough control over the Bitcoin network through their control of the official repository that operators would just accept it.

The claim has not been proven (and I think we all know that it wouldn't), but the court of appeals has correctly determined that it isn't their place to summarily decide that it wouldn't and that it needs to go to trial.

The court would not compel node operators (there's been absolutely zero entertainment of the idea that node operators are fiduciaries).

There isn't an 'official repository' -- a most popular one for sure. :) And most of the defendants have no control over it in any case (e.g. people like me that had stopped working on Bitcoin a long time ago, people whos involvement was limited to just submitting pull requests, or people who quit because what sane person voluntarily takes on this kind of harassment). Besides, if control over a particular github repository were really the criteria then Microsoft would be the most appropriate defendant :).

Part of the challenge here is that in summary judgements the facts are assumed in the facts are assumed in the favor of the non-movant so if you're in court against someone who is willing to tell arbitrary lies (because, e.g. their goal isn't to win, it's just to make you fold) you're severely disadvantages when it comes to discharging the case on a summary basis.

> In 2021, the London High Court gave Craig Wright's lawyers permission to serve papers to the 16 developers, even if they don't reside in the U.K.

So what happens if they just don't show up to court? Sure you'll lose by default judgment, and then you can ignore the judgment, right? If I got a court summons from some random country like Sudan or Botswana or the UK I would just ignore it. How could that backfire assuming I don't plan on traveling to Sudan in my lifetime?

Sudan or Botswana ? You could definitely ignore.

The UK government ? Not so much. If the case has enough clout and import, the UK government has enough “multilateral conventions and bilateral extradition treaties” to make your life really miserable.

You should edit your post to "living hell for all eternity"

UK != Sudan, and there's weapons like extradition, sanctions, property seizure, garnishment, cross-jurisdiction suits, international travel restrictions on an ongoing indefinite basis, etc.

Extradition for civil matters? I don’t believe it.

The smart move would be for them to club together and go and win in court, this case seems pretty ridiculous and the premise is very flimsy. Having a loss like this on the books and in case law would be harmful to the ongoing concerns of bitcoin.

If Craig Wright was Satoshi, as he claims, he should have over a million unspent btc.

The only logical conclusion from fighting this battle is that Craig Wright is a liar.

Or he forgot his wallet password. ;)

This is pretty much what this lawsuit is about. He claims that it's bitcoin developers' fault that he lost access to "his" billions and they should restore it somehow.

Wait, not only is this batshit insane, the guy used to pretend he was satoshi nakamoto? Surely the actual satoshi nakamoto would have the knowledge to implement this, and also know that it would efectively be the D.A.O 2.0?

Was the Bitcoin code that the lawsuit is about MIT licensed?

yes

Reply on news.ycombinator.com