26 sats \ 4 replies \ @Murch 6 Feb 2023 \ parent \ on: Of regrets bitcoin
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.)
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.
reply
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.
reply
Seems to me that the price of a single bullet is getting more and more impossible each day to ignore.
reply
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.
He's not just poking random people.
He's poking a network state.
reply