Bitcoin Forum

https://themerkle.com/bitfury-becomes-desperate-and-threatens-to-sue-bitcoin-developers/


BitFury Threatens to Sue Bitcoin Developers



Bitfury does not seem to understand if/when Core pulls the rug out from under the ASICS,

They will only have a few days to switch to BTU before bankruptcy becomes a major concern for them.

They don't have time to wait for a lawsuit.


 8)

FYI:
If Bitfury switched to BTU now, BTU would only need ~5% more to make BTU a Success Story for BTC.
Why does Bitfury even want to work with Core as Core threatens them with a Bankruptcy when they switch PoW.
Slave Mentality , I guess.

core want to dominate bitcoin and centralise it.

blockstream want bitcoin to die they are in the hyperledger bankers pockets. blockstream dont care about bitcoin being weaker if they move away from PoW. they just want to dominate to dismantle it.

they even admit that segwit is a trojan by going soft and saying by having segwit allows more changes to be made by going soft. thus avoiding consensus to slide in changes the community and pools cannot veto

pools who do veto it will either get ban hammerd off, get algo changed off, or just get bip9/UASF mandatory activation off ..

segwit was an altcoin and has not made a single segwit block with a single segwit tx on bitcoin mainnet...
segwit requires people to move their native funds to the alt keypair of segwit to even do anything.

if blockstream think the community is all onboard they would not have gone soft.

if they think hard is a worry due to splitting the network.. then why go soft and then threaten to split the network and blackmail nodes and pools.

blockstream are insane.
all because blockstream are IN DEBT and need to start repaying their $70m debt.

yes folks blockstream have not got $70m+ of funds to give jobs to the 100+ loyal spell checkers hoping for a job. blockstream are out of cash.

Matt Corallo has jumped ship to avoid the legal drama about to unfold.. and soon the other devs will too.
blockstream have their exit strategy ready they just need a few more months to do as much damage as they can

You can't sue Core developers who have no control over what the Bitcoin community chooses to use
as a new client to cause a PoW change, in the event of an attack from miners on a minority chain.
If anything, the purposeful attack on the minority chain could be argued to be a form of tortious
interference for the exchanges and users who choose to still conduct business on it. So, the only
true legal liability here is against mining businesses who choose to participate in a chain attack.

If the miners choose to split off onto their own chain, and then choose to attack the minority chain,
that would be seen as very malicious action by the Court systems. There is no legal justification or
obligation to destroy the old chain. The Court will determine this to be a form of financial theft. If the
miners let the minority chain die on its own, there is to problem.

If the threat of action was good legal theory, exchanges, miners, and users could sue the BU Developers
and other proponents for the same type of argument, if their hardfork proposal was successful. The legal
argument is not isolated to a strict PoW change. The legal aspect would fall under "any fundamental
change" and whether you can prove damage from a specific actor.

Miners should be aware of the laws within different countries before they declare legal action that
would ultimately be seen as frivolous. They will need to also name all the new client node operators
who chose to run this PoW change software as defendants, since without that information, not all parties
would be part of the case and thus could be dismissed on those grounds alone.

Edit: typo change - from torturous interference to tortious interference

thinking core cannot be blamed is like thinking a passenger in a drive-by cannot be an accessory..

its easy to spot who allows and disallows bips/issues to be active or thrown out without a second thought. it certainly isnt "the community"
its easy to spot who implements the commits.
its easy to spot who ACK's the commits

its easy to spot.

then there are the obvious blockstream employed devs and all thier connections.
why do you think gmaxwell handed over the reigns of the Bip moderation to Luke..
why matt corrallo jumped ship to chaincode.

they know they are screwed and trying to pre-empt themselves to try playing the victim card. when they are the perpetrators


come on face it.
throw out dynamic proposals because it might cause some orphan drama or a split... but include security breaking nuke in the form of a PoW algo change..

even logic see's the stupidity of that

That suit will fail you can't sue a consensus change and or a development team for implementing a proposal that will be decided by the network.
They will just need to create new scripts it's Bitfury's fault for betting the farm on a non-determined outcome.
First movers have an advantage and also a loss if it does not come to be.

Either way our ciphers will need to change eventually Sha256 may be secure now but cryptography is not eternally secure a change will need to be done by 2050 which is when it is predicted the script security could get broken into.

Under the law in most western jurisdictions, you will not be able to find voluntary
developers liable for the actions of the Community. Blockstream as a business is a
different issue, but for them to circumvent this, they would just not participate in
any of the processes of this "grass root group" creating a new client that "changes
the PoW on an attacked minority chain".

I would presume that if such a client is created and used, it would be built by anon
developers and not done on the CORE github directly.

Ultimately, the legal aspects are very complicated and if your legal action against Core
developers was successful than all that it would prove is that Bitcoin with it separate
decentralized structures designed to resist different attacks (including legal suits) failed.
That would prove that Bitcoin is currently regulatable and no person would willingly work
on Bitcoin code since it would open them up to liabilities. That would be very sad for
open-source software projects and would create new precedent, IMO.

You can not blame or find parties responsible for damages unless you prove it.
Since Bitcoin is a voluntary system with no responsible authority who grants user or etc any
rights, the proposed suit would be a hard case to prove and would be a waste of money.

My only point is that all parties should keep the law out of this, because then you open a
pandora's box, that I don't think this community is ready to deal with, especially if it goes
the wrong way. One party will not be hurt here, but most likely the whole community. A
suit against voluntary developers is different than a suit against a defunct exchange like Mt.Gox.

bitcoin...is not core.

if core have a piece of code thats only intent is to bankrupt businesses.. then CORE are responsible.

and like any piece of software with a trojan in it where the users do not fully understant the ramifications of using the software. yes the users cannot be blamed for using it.
but the code writer who implanted the trojan can.

its not about fair competition its about of an open market choice. its about pure intent and clear desire to do something drastic that does not help security but just acts maliciously.

bitcoin has many implementations. but the lawsuit would not be against diverse bitcoin. but against those specifically involved.

there are only a few that have that privilege.

and its easy to show intent by looking at their actions of trashing other bips while promoting others.

so bitfury can find people to prosecute easily.

..

what i personally find funny is how you think core are independent.
what i personally find funny is how you think core cannot be held to account while also for months having core themselves screaming blue murder that they are the centre and control/reference of bitcoin and any other implementation is an alt.
that alone is them defining themselves as a target organisation. by actually pretending to own bitcoin they are actually admitting they are passengers of a drive-by. not bystanders.. but actual accessories. they are defining their own fait

by them kissing each others ass putting themselves into a cabin .. they have put a target on their back.

gmaxwell handed the BIP management to luke JR and blockstream are ready to throw Luke JR under the bus for all the code, contributions to a PoW  algo change..

bitfury is involved with barry silbert (DCG) which is partners with blockstream so bitfury know more than you think about the behind the scenes stuff

---

lastly while its obvious Luke JR will be atleast an accessory, if not the perpetrator..
you have to think beyond the drama.

what would it actually achieve.
by luke releasing code for a new proposal.. bitmain can draw up blueprints(probably already have blueprints for SHA3) and be making a new pool/syndicate and new ASIC that will rip any new algo out of the hands of solo mining at home wishful thinkers before its activated.

so while Luke and his gang are in legal battles and other things.. the empty gesture of pretending its 'for the best' will be seen as the empty gesture it is and wont be used as a defence, because its too obvious that its a fake excuse to deploy a PoW algo change in the first place.. the intent will be seen as malicious and nothing more

I happen to live in America where you can sue anyone, for any reason, at any time.  :P

And the Mega Rich do not have to win the LawSuit to Bankrupt the opposing side with Legal Defense Fees.  :P

Irony : Core PoW change Bankrupts Bitfury and BitFury Bankrupts Core Devs by filing lawsuits.  :P

No Honor among Thieves.  :D


 8)

If the company incurred a lost then he can sue what causes the lost,only in america you can find unlikely cases and this case is no difference,so let's see what's going to happen they are protecting their interest just like every one else,with this scenario bitcoin will definitely made a big news,one of the biggest since Mt.gox..

I'm not going to debate any of your arguments.
I very much disagree with your legal theory and interpretation.
Some of your statements and beliefs are not allowed in a Court of law.
If you think Core devs are not independent people, then you will need to prove that.

I don't need to go through every aspect of post. I am telling you that you may be arguing
now just for the sake of hurting Core or Blackstream, but under the eyes of the Court, and
depending on the actual circumstance of the case and events, most of this doesn't matter.

All developers make no representations to anything. Blockstream attorneys will counsel their
employees as to what they can and can not do. I am only talking to voluntary developers.

If Bitfury sues Core developers because anon people fork the Core Github and changed the
PoW and then the community still on the minority chose to use it, is a frivolous lawsuit.
If CORE willingly changed the PoW on their GitHub and tells people to "hurry and update",
maybe then you have a case, but then you still need to argue what the damage is since it
is only a minority chains. The issue is very complex from a legal perceptive and you can't just
clap your hands and say, "its obvious they are liable and should pay". Law, especially with
things like Bitcoin, is not that simple. In theory, according to how Bitcoin works, if Bitfury
has concern, they should either not join the majority BU signalling or need to attack the
minority, which in of itself could cause the same liability issue that they themselves are
threatening.

Actually, that is called a frivolous lawsuit and the opposition attorneys can be awarded fees
and expenses for that. Your statement that "In America you can sue for anything. etc", is
actually not true when you get into the Court room.

its frivolous to just name for instance.. bitcoin as the perpetrator for bitfury loses

but to name luke Jr and others as accomplices/ accessories, is not frivolous

oh and Luke Jr cannot just say "but its up to the community to download it for the SHAPoW nuke to activate".. as a defence.

just like a botnet trojan creator cannot say "but its up to the community to download it for the botnet to function".. as a defence.
luke JR have to defend against why include such destructive code in the first place

things like lukes computer will get siezed and luke having to hand over any and all documentation in regards to his employer..(blockstream)
many many things can happen from that.

all while the intent of a PoW change not being about 'good for the community' becomes easy to show/demonstate. and thus making it harder for people like luke to defend against allowing such code in.

luke cannot even pretend to be independent because he has been very public about calling any non blockstream sanctioned implementation an altcoin.

Seriously, I am telling you that I do believe it is the users choice. Luke Jr or anyone else, as
long as it is not a forced change on everyone, land the minority community decided
individually to use "Luke Jr's patch", I don't think Luke Jr can be held liable. You are going
down a road of legal liability and theory that does not exist right now. If Luke Jr created a
virus or a trojan program, that is malicious to computer users, that is obviously different.
But what I am talking about is not designed to attack the majority chain, it is designed to
preserve the minority chain, and because of that distinction, the Court will not find that
patch to be malicious.

Open-source is the way it is for a reason. It is not meant for profits or liabilities. it is
actually designed so that there is none since the system created under that banner is
free and have no warranties, rights, or guarantees. If we all paid money for Bitcoin clients,
like cool wallets with advanced features, and those failed, we can hold those developers
liable. But since Bitcoin does not do any of that, there is no right to hold them liable.

Hold voluntary dev on an open-source project is very different law than a corporation
that make programs for profit.

.. my rebuttle
bot-net trojans.

hackers cant use the "well people downloaded it, blame them" defence

even if the bot-net trojan amassed a million users computers to ddos a company..
the writer and implementer of the code is responsible. not the million users that were not fully informed

anyone who was informed to allow a destructive code that had clear intents of the purpose and result of such code becomes responsible.

Botnets and trojans are obviously malicious.
That is not in any dispute.

Listen Franky, this is one time I can ensure you that you are incorrect.
If I am wrong then all open-source voluntary software developers are liable.

You are arguing that if BU becomes the main Bitcoin protocol and it somehow fails big
time and people lose money, we will need to roll back the chain, which breaks the immunity,
or else the BU devs will be subject to the same form of liability as your are now describing.
I am telling you that whichever developer team takes over, both are protected from the
actions you are advocating.

People can sue them, but those people are ignorant of what they participated in.
Bitcoin is an experiment for a reason. It is do at your own risk.
Unless it is willfully malicious, there is no liability.

Self defense from a majority chain attack is not malicious.
Changing the PoW now with our current chain, is malicious.
That is the difference.

nope
dynamics is not intending to destroy an economy. other implementations ar not intending to either.
but its public knowledge of Luk Jrs intent.

EG men have penises.. their is a chance that rapes can happen. STI's pregnancy.. etc,
but without intent to be malicious. nothing can be done.

this PoW has intent.. very clear and obvious intent/purpose

if you dont understand. some countries call it MOTIVE.

EG it makes the difference between self defence and murder.. even if the weapon or people involved dont change.

I am surprised at the guys commenting on this asinine thread.  You all know that the PoW will never be changed.  So why argue such a stupid hypothetical?  You guys bored with the BU segwit debate?

yep because BU has no deadlines, made no threats, so bored of trying to argue with the redditors who make 20 bitcointalk user names to hide behind just to repeat the same scripts that an implementation that has been plodding away without threats for 2 years is suddenly the threat.. and that segwit that has not even made a segwit block with a segwit tx yet, nor been running for even a year.. is the victim.. even when segwit has all the high ban scores, deadlines threats, blackmails and pointing fingers in every direction but their own.

i agree the PoW change SHOULDNT happen.
but looking at the mandatory activation code core want to put into segwit. FORCING it to activate even without consensus.. it actually shows that core devs like Luke, have the means, opportunity and motive.. and could actually trojan horse the code in softly. so it is possible

If there is a contentious fork and one side decides that it will 51% attack the other (which they have already stated they will do), why wouldn't the other side defend their chain by changing the proof of work?

Or are you suggesting that a contentious fork will never occur and/or a 51% attack will never happen?

No.
If Luke has "intent to destroy Bitcoin" and someone else does it, that does not prove
in a Court of Law that Luke committed the act of "destroying Bitcoin". Claiming he is
an "accessory" does not work in Courts in these types of situations. This isn't a bank
robbery and Luke is driving the car with knowledge of the crime.

You are now arguing that Satoshi is a criminal for releasing Bitcoin, even though we
choose to use it and build a community around it. You would bring Satoshi to trial.

If Luke decides to release a client version that hardforks the minority chain to a new
PoW, what is the damage? If no one join him on this new fork, there is no damage.
The damage only occurs when individual users decided to use this new client. Luke
basically gave those users a choice to go to a new chain the same way that BU gives
users a choice at a new chain, they are equivalent under the law. if Luke's hardfork is
bad and there is liability, then the BU chain and devs is equally bad and liable under
the same legal interpretation.

Since franky1 has a selective short term memory which is necessary in order to continue his narrative, here is a post outlining some very recent threats BU has made.


Since franky1 will attempt to argue that these aren't threats, but actually a defense, I suppose I must post the follow up as well.

I hope you aren't referring to me Franky, that is pretty cheap and not very gentlemanly.
I do not post or go to reddit and any mod (go get theymos), to check how many accounts
I have that I post from. The answer is one, this one.

Since you are accusing me of such an action, I assume that is what you yourself is doing here.

FTFY
by luke providing the reason, and the weapon.. the yes luke is involved..
much like hiring a hitman.. its not just the hitmans fault. its who orchestrated it


satoshi has nothing to do with the PoW change. thats like blaming the car..

if luke was the minority and wanted to take himself to the sidelines and make his own minority creation SHA3 then he can..

but nuking a majority simply because of spite.. that the difference.


you are kind of starting to grasp it.
all thats needed is to ban connecting/communicating to avoid the orphan/connection/consensus drama of 2 coins fighting..
.. but orchestrating bankrupting a business is a whole different thing

lol actually agentofcoin in many ways i admire you for sticking to one name
i actually see that you are open minded to learn.

the bit about the "20 bitcointalk user names to hide behind" are the usual BTU is an alt trolls that pop up. that cannot actually rebuttle simple debates or lack desire to learn

though we disagree on things. i dont see you as the "usual BTU is an alt" trolls that make endless names

How can you sue if the people making the changes have 0 control over what the users choose to use going forward?

Sounds like someone is worried about their business model going forward. Who can blame them...but threatening to sue on those grounds is going to be one of a kind.

Well I see miners become crazy when it concerns their income. Even such upright miners like Bitfury. I dont even say about Antpool, they are completely insane, they'd rather destroy bitcoin than lost any part of their income. Sad :(.
It only tells us that we must reduce their influence as soon as possible.
https://i.imgur.com/O5VUB5d.jpg

if luke just made a gun.. fine.. random people buy and gun and do what they want with it. or just dont use a gun.. luke cant be held responsible.

but if luke made a gun
whereby luke made it target only .. lets say children.
and luke publicly announced he wanted kids to die
and luke publicly announced a deadline of when the gun should be used by...

then luke becomes accountable

What is Bitfurys rights and remedies as a miner under Bitcoin and the blockchain?
What are the legal obligations of voluntary developers to Bitcoin and the blockchain?
Those are the legal questions. Bitfury is secondary to those answers.



No, but what Satoshi did is exactly what Luke would in theory do.
It is relevant because you are arguing it is ok in one case, but not in another.
Satoshi provided a choice (say against Western Union) and so would Luke be doing.
In your theory, Western union could bring an action against Satoshi, if they could find him.



But no one is talking about "nuking the majority". Bitfury is talking about the minority chain.


There is no orchestrating. That is an unintended side effect in order to prevent systematic failure.
If the minority chain does not hardfork to change the PoW, you are allowing the majority to attack
the minority till it can not produce any blocks, which is the very malicious act, that you are accusing
"Luke jr" to be doing when all he did was a provide choice. If the majority let the minority live, there
is no issues. It is that majority attack that allows the minority hardfork to be acceptable, and then
Bitfurys concerns unenforceable. The community screwed Bitfury, not Luke.

In a Court of Law, most of this is irrelevant.
Developers, such as with the bitcoin experiment, can not be held liable in most cases.
In the situation of Bitfury, they have no reasonable chance of success unless Majority changes PoW,
and even that will be a hard case since there is no contract nor and implied contract that Bitfury
signed into with any responsible party that guaranteed to them that the PoW would never be changed.
The reality is that Bitfury took the risk and lost in the end. You should not build your business on
assets that no responsible party guarantees nor insures. They are a do at your own risk business.
If this whole theoricial happens, they are shit out of luck, but that is what happens and why we
need 95% Consensus. Not only does it prevent split chains, but also mitigates all these other issues.

Yes, we can disagree on many things and still respect each other.
I know that you truly believe what you believe in with Bitcoin, and though we disagree
fundamentally on specific issues, I think we both want Bitcoin to succeed and survive.
Trolls and etc have become a serious issue with the whole community, but unfortunately that
will only get worse with time and adoption.

Bingo. NONE of this shit is going to happen.  None of it.  You guys have all been here long enough to know this.

Now back to more bickering over a bunch of things that will never happen....

Wellp, better for BU not to hard fork away from bitcoin main chain because then Core could change POW but wait a second, the whole bitcoin mining community is running on ASICs now so how could any miner vote against their own interest? it is literally a money printing machine and why on earth anyone intentionally vote on destroying their own money printing machines?
You say Core has mandatory activation remote commands or something like that? do big miners actually review and triple check the codes before they mine with it?

It doesn't make any sense that in order to shut down the TV you'll need to destroy the remote control and the button on the TV itself.