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

[AgentofCoin]

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

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.

[Holliday]

yep because BU has no deadlines made no threats

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.

Indeed, here are some of the non-threats from BU.

We have prepared $100 million USD to kill the small fork of CoreCoin, no matter what POW algorithm, sha256 or scrypt or X11 or any other GPU algorithm. Show me your money. We very much welcome a CoreCoin change to POS.

Preventing a minority-hashrate fork from confirming any transactions is a good idea. Nakomoto Consensus != unanimity.

Miners will orphan the blocks of non-compliant miners prior to the first larger block to serve as a reminder to upgrade.

To address the risk of coins being spent on this chain (replay risk), majority miners will deploy hash power as needed to ensure the minority chain includes only empty blocks after the forking point.

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-market-needs-big-blocks-says-founder-btc-top-mining-pool/
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/827904756525981697
https://medium.com/@peter_r/on-the-emerging-consensus-regarding-bitcoins-block-size-limit-insights-from-my-visit-with-2348878a16d8#.hih385eti

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.

Users choosing to install client software with a new proof of work does not aggress upon those who want to remain with a different, previously existing proof of work. It's an optional alternative and not forced upon anyone.

However, actively attacking a chain with a different proof of work with the aim of preventing others from continuing that chain, is an aggression and an attack.

---

Creating blocks which signal a specification which others do not agree with does not aggress upon those signalling a different specification.

However, intentionally orphaning blocks which signal a specification you do not agree with, in order to directly impact the income of those miners, is an aggression and an attack.

---

Choosing to stick with the original specification during a contentious hard fork does not aggress upon those who have decided to change their clients and implement a new set of rules.

However, intentionally mining empty blocks on a chain which chooses not to change their clients and implement a new set of rules, in an attempt to prevent that chain from existing, is an aggression and an attack.

---

Finally, for the love of all things holy, no one from Core has ever forced anyone to install their software, we who choose to install it do so because we agree with the rules set forth in the software which is provided by them.

[AgentofCoin]

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?

...
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.. ...

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.

[franky1]

No.
If Luke has "intent to destroy bitfury" and a flashmob triggered it does it, that does not prove
in a Court of Law that Luke committed the act of "destroying bitfury". Claiming he is
an "accessory" does not work in Courts in these types of situations.

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

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.

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

If Luke decides to release a client version that hardforks the minority chain to a new
PoW, what is the damage?

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.

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.

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

[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?

...
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.. ...

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.

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

[smoothie]

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.

[Viscount]

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.

[franky1]

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.

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

[AgentofCoin]

No.
If Luke has "intent to destroy bitfury" and a flashmob triggered it does it, that does not prove
in a Court of Law that Luke committed the act of "destroying bitfury". Claiming he is
an "accessory" does not work in Courts in these types of situations.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

If Luke decides to release a client version that hardforks the minority chain to a new
PoW, what is the damage?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

[AgentofCoin]

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?

...
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.. ...

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.

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

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.

[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?

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?

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....

[ImHash]

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.