pull down to refresh
405 sats \ 5 replies \ @rijndael 7 Feb 2023 \ on: Of regrets bitcoin
I'm not a lawyer, but
seems pretty cut-and-dry to me. Can someone explain why that wouldn't indemnify devs?
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.
reply
thanks for the insight!
reply
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.
reply
I like this. You can count on me not to run that code ;)
reply
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. ;)
reply