* Note to BTC Core Devs, BitFury is Going to Sue you if you Change the PoW Algo

[kiklo]

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


BitFury Threatens to Sue Bitcoin Developers

When you thought things couldn’t get any more interesting, George Kikvadze, Vice Chairman of BitFury firing some shots on twitter.
According to him, those that might possibly change the POW protocol for Bitcoin will get prosecuted to the fullest extent.
It is obvious why BitFury is terrified of a POW change,
the company raised over $90M in funding which could become futile if Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism is altered.

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.


 

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.

[1715111303]

1715111303

[1715111303]

1715111303

[franky1]

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

[AgentofCoin]

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


BitFury Threatens to Sue Bitcoin Developers

When you thought things couldn’t get any more interesting, George Kikvadze, Vice Chairman of BitFury firing some shots on twitter.
According to him, those that might possibly change the POW protocol for Bitcoin will get prosecuted to the fullest extent.
It is obvious why BitFury is terrified of a POW change,
the company raised over $90M in funding which could become futile if Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism is altered.

...

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

[franky1]

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 torturous
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 to
destroy the old chain. The Court will determine that to be a form of financial theft. If the miners let
the minority chain die on its own, there is to problem.

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.

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

[freedomno1]

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.

[AgentofCoin]

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 torturous
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 to
destroy the old chain. The Court will determine that to be a form of financial theft. If the miners let
the minority chain die on its own, there is to problem.

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.

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

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.

[franky1]

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.

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

[jonald_fyookball]

You can't sue Core developers who have no control over what the Bitcoin community chooses to use 

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

[kiklo]

You can't sue Core developers who have no control over what the Bitcoin community chooses to use 

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

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

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

No Honor among Thieves. 


 

[robelneo]

You can't sue Core developers who have no control over what the Bitcoin community chooses to use 

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

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..

[AgentofCoin]

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.

...

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.

[AgentofCoin]

You can't sue Core developers who have no control over what the Bitcoin community chooses to use  

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

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.

[franky1]

You can't sue Core developers who have no control over what the Bitcoin community chooses to use  

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

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.

[AgentofCoin]

You can't sue Core developers who have no control over what the Bitcoin community chooses to use  

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

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 and to name their accomplices, is not frivolous

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

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

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.

[franky1]

blah blah blah

.. 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.

[AgentofCoin]

blah blah blah

.. 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.

[franky1]

blah blah blah

.. my rebuttle
bot-net trojans.

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

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

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.

[BurtW]

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?

[franky1]

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

[Holliday]

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?

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?