Class Action Lawsuite targeting Instigators of XT Attack

[KurtB]

As the so called “Bitcoin XT” attack/virus has been lunched this week it appears to me more and more like a scrupulous attempt to take the Bitcoin Blockchain hostage.
As I read up on it I found that able man already faced the troll-mob and manged to contain their subversive influence on the web.
Luckily chek2fire has also lunched a first emergency defense to rout the henchman on the network and gouge out the cyclops eye.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154520.0;all

Now it's time that we zero in on the instigators.

I deliberated with my lawyer over lunch and he suggested to sue the companies that 'hold' Bitcoin. In case we can get them on record to peddle XTcoin for Bitcoin they are at least liable for false advertising or manipulative business practices.
This weighs especially heavy because consumer protection and property rights are usually quite strong in most jurisdictions.

He suggested also another approach whereby companies conspired to fix prices. I would be surprised if the companies in question, that encouraged the Hearn Gang didn't actually bet on the obvious price decline following their announcement.

I uncovered a first list of beneficiaries.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37y8wm/list_of_bitcoin_services_that_supportoppose/
e.g.:
Coinbase
Blockchain.info
BitPay
Xapo
Third Key Solutions
Armory
Bittiraha.fi
BX.in.th
Breadwallet
OKCoin
BTC Guild

Any suggestions as how to approach this best? I am thinking of opening accounts with all of them. I also checked the terms of service for xapo and it says nowhere that they retain special rights on your property.

If we manage to force them to repay Bitcoin with Bitcoin, a fork would be equal to kicking away the stool so that the noose pulls tight.

[1715107999]

1715107999

[1715107999]

1715107999

[achow101]

There is a difference between supporting increasing the maximum block size and supporting XT. They are NOT THE SAME. Please check again and see if you can find anything about these companies that explicitly state they support BitcoinXT, not just support an increase of the maximum blocksize. Implicit statements such as supporting the max block size may not hold up in court.

Of course, I don't think this will actually work, but good luck.

[KurtB]

There is a difference between supporting increasing the maximum block size and supporting XT. They are NOT THE SAME. Please check again and see if you can find anything about these companies that explicitly state they support BitcoinXT, not just support an increase of the maximum blocksize. Implicit statements such as supporting the max block size may not hold up in court.

Of course, I don't think this will actually work, but good luck.

Good Point, I think it is important that we set a signal that those that have a certain responsibility must make sure that their words are not misunderstood and provide fuel for wacky lunatics.

This is why central bank people read specifically prepared statements.

Either way, if they adopt it and Alice puts in 2015 1 Bitcoin in their account and receives 1 XTCoin in 2016 while Bitcoin is still around, ... we have a case!

[Carlton Banks]

Watching with interest and possible support. Get something credible together.

[RustyNomad]

I'm also not to sure whether any actual company have thus far come out to support a specific 'software' implementation. I know many are supporting larger blocks but so do most of us.

With that said, I like this idea. We are past the point where bitcoin was just a project to be 'played' and 'toyed' with. There is serious money invested in bitcoin and the developers of core, xt or whatever implementation needs to understand that their actions could have serious consequences.

I'm not saying that the 'developers' are not taking this seriously but it's maybe time that all are given a wakeup call as to how serious this matter truly is.

[KurtB]

I'm also not to sure whether any actual company have thus far come out to support a specific 'software' implementation. I know many are supporting larger blocks but so do most of us.

With that said, I like this idea. We are past the point where bitcoin was just a project to be 'played' and 'toyed' with. There is serious money invested in bitcoin and the developers of core, xt or whatever implementation needs to understand that their actions could have serious consequences.

I'm not saying that the 'developers' are not taking this seriously but it's maybe time that all are given a wakeup call as to how serious this matter truly is.

This is exactly what I have in mind. If they want to play and toy with my retirement nest-egg they should not get away that easy.

The goal is not to punish developers or business interest but to use them as a vehicle to show later generations that actions have consequences.

As for the lot at hand, they can now file for chapter 11. If they go through with any fork they incur serious liabilities, if they don't the business model they aspired isn't going to work.

They told their investors that they are going to be the next Visa. The only chance they have to do that on the back of Bitcoin is to push for
a) Compliance architecture, KYC, FATCA etc. that will be phased in with the XT fork (Hearn: "Peer Priorities")
b) Much, much, much higher volumes that will be phased in starting with 8MB blocks

If they had ask me earlier I would have told them that I will never pay for the infrastructure to allow every minor transaction that does not require the protection of the Blockchain onto the Blockchain. This is why there is a limit. They are expecting me to host all this dust and finance their business model.

Now they will have a hard time explaining the VC how to pivot out of that situation. The good part is that they probably run out of cash if XT isn't taking off.

In the end, the world will see that Bitcoin has a healthy auto immune system.

[Carlton Banks]

I'm also not to sure whether any actual company have thus far come out to support a specific 'software' implementation. I know many are supporting larger blocks but so do most of us.

Who doesn't? I don't favour BIP 101 or XT, but I've been in favour of bigger blocks since before this issue. I've heard it said that everyone at Blockstream wants to stick to 1 MB. But the reality is that their ideas are more complicated than BIP 101, and so it makes it difficult to present the information in terms of which blocksize limit the various parties favour. It's easier to stick "1 MB" in a table than it is to insert a paragraph of description, or a diagram.

I'm not saying that the 'developers' are not taking this seriously but it's maybe time that all are given a wakeup call as to how serious this matter truly is.

I don't know, I think Hearn and Andresen are forcing the issue slightly earlier than when it would have caused problems naturally. It's only serious because of the threat to the system, not because of the technical issue that's the ostensible point of contention.

[KurtB]

It's only serious because of the threat to the system, not because of the technical issue that's the ostensible point of contention.

I think it is a real threat to some companies who sold Bitcoin to their investors as something that it is not. The limited block size is a threat to them and their next round of funding.

Bitcoin is a Mercedes with limited capacity. The compact size gives it superior security. I have never felt uncomfortable in it despite extreme environment conditions.
Security is a function of block size and hashing power.

You can pay for the privilege to get on board (fee).
You can build your own XT-Fiat.
You can walk.

You can not remodel the Mercedes into a Fiat-Ducato just to make it fit your failed business model.

This is what those companies require, they have taken huge amounts of venture capital on the promise that Bitcoin is a Fiat-Ducato.
That's were the pressure comes from.

[Carlton Banks]

It's only serious because of the threat to the system, not because of the technical issue that's the ostensible point of contention.

I think it is a real threat to some companies who sold Bitcoin to their investors as something that it is not. The limited block size is a threat to them and their next round of funding.

Bitcoin is a Mercedes with limited capacity. The compact size gives it superior security. I have never felt uncomfortable in it despite extreme environment conditions.
Security is a function of block size and hashing power.

You can pay for the privilege to get on board (fee).
You can build your own XT-Fiat.
You can walk.

You can not remodel the Mercedes into a Fiat-Ducato just to make it fit your failed business model.

This is what those companies require, they have taken huge amounts of venture capital on the promise that Bitcoin is a Fiat-Ducato.
That's were the pressure comes from.

Bitcoin is more like Wikispeed than a Mercedes: wwwway more exclusive, developed and distributed bottom-up, not top-down. I like your analogy otherwise, it makes a lot of sense.