Craig Wright's Latest Escapade -- Give me the bitcoins I stole from Mt. Gox!

[DooMAD]

I always believed that (...) Craig Wright had some involvement in the Mt Gox robbery.

But why?  Faketoshi is always desperate to be perceived as someone who has been a significant part of Bitcoin's history.  But so far, all he's proven is that he's an absolute nobody and doesn't matter in the slightest.  Prior to emergence of all the forkcoins, there's no evidence to show he has contributed to any of Bitcoin's major events.  Why would Gox be any different to all the other lies he's told?  It's just one fabrication after another.  Never anything of substance to back it up.

[Wind_FURY]

There are two plaintiffs in the case, Craig Wright, and someone named Cory Fields. A simple Google search brings this link, it’s Cory Fields’ profile, https://dci.mit.edu/cory-fields

It says that he’s a Bitcoin Core developer, “cory fields | bitcoin core developer”.

Can anyone confirm if he is. gmax? achow?

[bitcoinstonk]

What Craig Wright is doing is very clever and very dangerous, and the Bitcoin Core team need to understand what he's doing and why.

He is *not* primarily trying to get the bitcoins back from the 1Feex address. That's just an excuse to file the lawsuit. His primary intention is to establish the legal precedent that courts can force the bitcoin developers to confiscate money from one address and give it to another address.

And he will succeed if the bitcoin developers don't prepare properly for the court proceedings. Here's what will happen unless the devs take it seriously and prepare good legal arguments:

* The devs will say it's technically impossible to give him access to those funds. They will be hoping that nobody understands bitcoin well enough to prove that it is in fact possible in a way that a court can understand, and they will try to create confusion in the hope that everybody will give up trying to understand.

...

* The devs will try to invent reasons why the same things can't be done with Bitcoin Core, and all of those reasons will be bullshit. They will be attempts to cause confusion, and they won't work. The reasons given will be either incomprehensible gibberish about obscure technical details, or they will be arguments that the users of the bitcoin software can choose what software to run, and they can't be forced to run software that breaks the existing rules for verifying transactions.

* Wright's lawyers will argue, successfully, that many updates have been made to the bitcoin software that change the rules for processing transactions, and that updates are made on an ongoing basis. They will argue, successfully, that nothing prevents Bitcoin Core from adding an exception for a single transaction to a new update. Core will argue that doing that will cause a fork in the blockchain, as old versions of the software will reject the new transaction as invalid and will reject every block containing it and subsequent blocks. Wright's lawyers will argue that requiring users to upgrade to the latest version of software in order to continue using it is normal and does not cause catastrophic system failure of the type that Core are claiming will happen.

* Wright's lawyers will be correct, and they will win. The court will find that the Bitcoin Core devs have the power to release new versions of the software and announce to users that upgrading is mandatory for the software to continue to operate successfully.

This has now happened. The court understands that the Core devs have the power to update the bitcoin code to make it treat a non-signed transaction as valid. The court also understands that it has the power to compel the Core devs to do that. This is bad.

Even if Wright loses this case, future courts can reference the judgment that was handed down on Friday. Criminal cases, sanctions, and even tax liabilities could result in the devs being dragged into court and possibly ordered to fork the blockchain in the future.

The strongest defense that I see right now is the argument that bitcoin owners and miners will rebel and refuse to use any new version that treats unsigned transactions as valid. The court needs to be convinced that this rebellion is very likely to occur, causing material financial harm to bitcoin users. The best ways that I can think of to present this to the court are:

* Explain that Craig Wright is a controversial figure who is widely hated and widely regarded as a scammer. A new version of the bitcoin software that violates the widely-loved principles of bitcoin for his benefit alone will not be regarded by the bitcoin community as a standard software update. It will not be possible to "slip it in" to the next software upgrade without users noticing.

* Explain that Ethereum users rebelled and created Ethereum Classic after an upgrade was released to remedy the DAO hack. Bitcoin users are even more committed to their principles than Ethereum users.

* Bitcoin has already forked because of segwit. Segwit was an extremely minor departure from the original bitcoin protocol. Hard-coding unsigned transactions is an extremely serious violation of the principles of bitcoin. It would be naive and negligent for the court to presume that no rebellion would occur in response to this violation.

* Bitcoin users would be asked to choose between a version of bitcoin in which their funds could not be confiscated by courts and a version in which they could. Bitcoin users do not hold courts in such high regard that they would willingly grant the courts the ability to seize their assets.

* The bitcoin community has a vision of a future in which bitcoin changes the balance of power in the world in favor of the people instead of the privileged and powerful. To grant Wright the relief he seeks, the court would need to rely on the cooperation of bitcoin users, who would be asked to sacrifice this vision. The court's ruling would be perceived by bitcoin users as an attempt to deprive future humanity of freedom and justice, and to perpetuate the rule of those who currently abuse power. It does not matter whether the court agrees with this perception. The court needs the cooperation of current bitcoin users to grant Wright the relief he seeks.

* To make these facts undeniable in the understanding of the court, the Core devs should invite relevant stakeholders including miners, holders, prominent figures and representatives of industry to submit Amicus Curiae briefs, explaining that these facts are true.

[nutildah]

This has now happened.

Yet its been 2 years and the 1Feex BSV hasn't moved.

The court also understands that it has the power to compel the Core devs to do that. This is bad.

That's not what was said by the judge. Read his words for yourself.

The judge merely pondered over whether or not the developers owed bitcoin users "fiduciary duties." Even if this matter is settled in their favor, Tulip Trading would still have to prove the 1Feex coins belonged to them, which they cannot do. Even if they somehow could prove it (they can't), the judge would still need to rule that developers make the changes, and as all of them do not fall under jurisdiction of the court, there is no way to make them comply. Even if the devs did comply, there is no way to make users comply.

This isn't bad. This is irrelevant.

The court needs to be convinced that this rebellion is very likely to occur, causing material financial harm to bitcoin users.

Nobody within bitcoin owes "the court" one second of their time. This is a giant nothingburger.

[bitcoinstonk]

Yet its been 2 years and the 1Feex BSV hasn't moved.

Indeed. The Core devs have not argued that it's technically impossible to do. If they had done that, then Wright would have moved the BSV funds using a hard fork and a non-signed transaction to prove that it is possible.

The judge merely pondered over whether or not the developers owed bitcoin users "fiduciary duties." Even if this matter is settled in their favor, Tulip Trading would still have to prove the 1Feex coins belonged to them, which they cannot do. Even if they somehow could prove it (they can't), the judge would still need to rule that developers make the changes, and as all of them do not fall under jurisdiction of the court, there is no way to make them comply. Even if the devs did comply, there is no way to make users comply.

Yes, but Wright is claiming that they have fiduciary duties to get the court to consider the question of whether bitcoins can be seized by coercing the Core devs to hard fork the code to accept a particular non-signed transaction.

The point is that courts and governments around the world don't yet know that they have this power. They think bitcoin can't be seized because everyone says it can't. But it can, by coercing the Core devs.

Wright is trying to get the courts and governments of the world to understand this. I'm sure he'd be very happy if he won the case, but even if he loses the case, he'll achieve his goal if he gets governments to understand that they can seize bitcoins.

The devs aren't going to defy a court order. They're not criminals or fugitives. They're law-abiding citizens in good standing and they really want to stay that way.

If the court rules that the devs must hard fork and include a non-signed transaction, then they'll do it.

Some of the users will use it and some will refuse and will keep using the previous version. The two competing versions would have different blockchains after the block where the fork happened, but transactions on one chain could be replayed on the other one, as long as the coins didn't come from Craig Wright's address.

If Wright never moves the funds that he received in the non-signed transaction, then every other user's balance will be identical on the two different chains. It wouldn't make a difference if you upgraded or not.

The person who would have the ability to make balances different on the two chains would be Craig Wright. He'd have all the bitcoins that are valid on one chain and invalid on the other. He could send some of those to any other bitcoin address, and cause a difference between that address's balances on the two chains.

That would be what would happen if the people who refuse to use the new version don't change their code to prevent transaction replays. They would be the ones who would need to fork. They'd make a new coin, probably called bitcoin classic.

[nutildah]

If the court rules that the devs must hard fork and include a non-signed transaction, then they'll do it.

I'm not so sure about that. First of all, what authority does a UK court have over 12 non-UK based developers?

You're approaching this from a viewpoint that includes several foregone conclusions, many of which I don't think will manifest the way you seem to be certain they will.

"Governments can seize bitcoins" is a giant stretch from what has actually transpired in this one particular court thus far.

Again, for this to be possible, miners and nodes need to use the forked client, and users need to transact on it. This is literally impossible to enforce, let alone getting the developers to go along with it in the first place.

A hugely wasteful endeavor of everybody's time and resources except for those desperately trying to keep the price of BSV from falling into oblivion. It sank to all-time lows just 3 months ago and is just hovering above them now. Per usual from the BSV camp, the whole ploy reeks of desperation.

[bitcoinstonk]

I'm not so sure about that. First of all, what authority does a UK court have over 12 non-UK based developers?

US courts will enforce foreign judgments if they satisfy the right conditions. The ruling in the UK is likely to be enforceable in the US.

"Governments can seize bitcoins" is a giant stretch from what has actually transpired in this one particular court thus far.

Indeed, it hasn't happened, but if Wright wins, then it will have happened. Every government will become aware that bitcoins have been seized and bitcoins can be seized.

Again, for this to be possible, miners and nodes need to use the forked client, and users need to transact on it. This is literally impossible to enforce, let alone getting the developers to go along with it in the first place.

Businesses will accept Wright's version of bitcoin or he'll sue them and win.

[nutildah]

Businesses will accept Wright's version of bitcoin or he'll sue them and win.

Again, a totally unenforceable claim. This happening is based on several assumptions all manifesting in miraculous, odds-defying alignment.

This is just more of the weird, threat-based hopium manufactured by the Wright camp that has never actually worked. The dude has been exposed as a fraud countless times, owned six ways from Sunday by people who actually know what they're talking about for years.

Why would anybody continue to believe he has a shred of credibility at this point?

Any sort of pump or positive traction generated by Wright's antics was based on outright lies. I'm pretty certain BSV would have been better off ditching him years ago. They could have shaken their association with Faketoshi by now and been simply known as the Bitcoin that stuffs data in really big blocks.

To give weight to yet another legal technicality-based charade is nonsensical at this point. It defies all logic given Wright's terrible track record in the courts.

[bitcoinstonk]

If he wins, the Core devs are likely to be unable to act as devs for the version of bitcoin that doesn't include Wright's unsigned transaction.

He would sue them if they did that, claiming that they're violating their fiduciary duty to protect the value of his bitcoins.

It would need to be a new team.

[bitcoinstonk]

Businesses will accept Wright's version of bitcoin or he'll sue them and win.

Again, a totally unenforceable claim. This happening is based on several assumptions all manifesting in miraculous, odds-defying alignment.

That would happen assuming that he won. He likes to sue people. If Coinbase says that they're not accepting his bitcoins, what do you think he'll do?

This is just more of the weird, threat-based hopium manufactured by the Wright camp that has never actually worked. The dude has been exposed as a fraud countless times, owned six ways from Sunday by people who actually know what they're talking about for years.

It doesn't matter what hasn't worked before. The court is allowing the case to proceed because three judges agreed that Wright has a significant chance of winning.

Why would anybody continue to believe he has a shred of credibility at this point?

The courts are taking him seriously because he has lawyers and is preparing his cases carefully.

Any sort of pump or positive traction generated by Wright's antics was based on outright lies.

There have certainly been a lot of lies involved. Wright's whole story about getting hacked is obviously a lie. But it's a lie that allows him to bring this case.

[nutildah]

It doesn't matter what hasn't worked before. The court is allowing the case to proceed because three judges agreed that Wright has a significant chance of winning.

No, that is not what was said at all. They're saying it is worth discussing the idea that cryptocurrency developers should bear some sort of fiduciary responsibility to their investors/users. And what jurisdiction does this actually apply to even if the answer was "yes, they do"?

There have certainly been a lot of lies involved. Wright's whole story about getting hacked is obviously a lie. But it's a lie that allows him to bring this case.

Never a great basis to hang one's hat on during a legal proceeding 

But at least you can recognize it was lie.

[bitcoinstonk]

It doesn't matter what hasn't worked before. The court is allowing the case to proceed because three judges agreed that Wright has a significant chance of winning.

No, that is not what was said at all. They're saying it is worth discussing the idea that cryptocurrency developers should bear some sort of fiduciary responsibility to their investors/users.

Lord Justice Birss wrote:
"there is, it seems to me, a realistic argument along the following lines. The developers of a given network are a sufficiently well defined group to be capable of being subject to fiduciary duties. Viewed objectively the developers have undertaken a role which involves making discretionary decisions and exercising power for and on behalf of other people, in relation to property owned by those other people. That property has been entrusted into the care of the developers. The developers therefore are fiduciaries. The essence of that duty is single minded loyalty to the users of the bitcoin software. The content of the duties includes a duty not to act in their own self interest and also involves a duty to act in positive ways in certain circumstances. It may also, realistically, include a duty to act to introduce code so that an owner's bitcoin can be transferred to safety in the circumstances alleged by Tulip."

Lord Justice Popplewell wrote:
I agree

Lord Justice Lewison wrote:
I agree

And what jurisdiction does this actually apply to even if the answer was "yes, they do"?

This falls under property law, and ownership of property is recognized and enforced worldwide. Courts in one country will recognize ownership of property even if that property was acquired in a different country. Wright can reasonably expect US courts to recognize his ownership of those bitcoins if he legally acquired them in the UK as a consequence of a UK court ruling.

[DaveF]

...everything bitcoinstonk has said....

NO NO AND NO

There are 1000s and 1000s of cases (probably 100s of 1000s) of where foreign courts have ordered things and every court in every other county said nope not going to happen.
There is not a criminal case, and more importantly there is no international agreement of even how to handle crypto. Is it physical property (painting), is it a financial asset (bond) is it physical currency (gold coin) and so on. Stop being a BSV shill / believer and go back to your hole in the ground.

CW is just a scammer, and every time anybody posts thing supporting a scammer like him you are supporting him.

This will grind it's way through the courts and he will loose.

Don't go away mad, just go away.

-Dave

[nutildah]

You cut out a couple hundred words between the paragraph you quoted and the judges saying "I agree."

They are not agreeing to the line of thinking you quoted, they are agreeing with the conclusion, which says this:

"The conclusion is not that there is a fiduciary duty in law in the circumstances alleged by Tulip, only that the case advanced raises a serious issue to be tried. The time to decide on the duty in this case is once the facts are established...

If the decentralised governance of bitcoin really is a myth, then 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."

The only thing being agreed upon is that Tulip Trust deserves an appeal because there are legal uncertainties that have yet to be fleshed out.

Your claim about property law commanding bitcoin devs to modify their software isn't based in any sort of tangible reality that currently exists today. It is based on wishful thinking that everything will unfold the way you believe it will.

Part of this also includes Craig proving to the court that he is the real owner of the 1Feex... coins, which he cannot possibly do.

[bitcoinstonk]

This will grind it's way through the courts and he will loose.

I hope you're right. But he's not going to lose if the Core devs are flippant and ignore the need to convince the courts.

This is a time to be serious and not engage in wishful thinking. This is a threat.

You don't like that. I understand. I don't like it either. You want to go back to sleep. Okay.

The only thing being agreed upon is that Tulip Trust deserves an appeal because there are legal uncertainties that have yet to be fleshed out.

Yes, and those legal uncertainties, when fleshed out, may "realistically" result in the devs being required to include code that moves bitcoins without a signature.

Your claim about property law commanding bitcoin devs to modify their software isn't based in any sort of tangible reality that currently exists today. It is based on wishful thinking that everything will unfold the way you believe it will.

I'm afraid not. This is fearful thinking, not wishful thinking. This is a threat. It needs to be stopped. Ignoring it is wishful thinking.

Part of this also includes Craig proving to the court that he is the real owner of the 1Feex... coins, which he cannot possibly do.

It's not him that he's claiming is the owner. It's Tulip. That's a corporation. Corporations acquire property through paperwork, not through bitcoin transactions. What he has to show the courts is paperwork, and they'll be satisfied. He'll show documents stating that ownership of that address and the funds at it have been legally transferred to Tulip.

The ownership is uncontested. Nobody else claims to own the bitcoins at that address. The court will see that the ownership is uncontested and Wright has receipts. Those are strong enough grounds to accept that Wright is the owner. If you contend that someone else owns them, you are free to present your evidence to the court.


How will courts and governments view Wright's case when considering their own interests?

If Wright wins, courts and governments will get control of bitcoin. If he loses, they won't (yet).

Do they want him to win or do they want him to lose?

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[nutildah]

This is my last response to the matter as its getting pretty boring.

may

This is the crux of your argument, that a bunch of things "may" happen in Craig's favor, however unlikely. This has been his marketing approach for years and not once has it ever worked out for him or for BSV. No reason to believe it will this time.

Therefore, I personally don't think anybody needs to do anything, except for Craig, who needs to continue convincing his money men they didn't make a terrible investment (spoiler alert: they did).

Pro tip: don't write consecutive posts in a row. It looks like you're just trying to bump the topic to the top of the board and your posts might get deleted. Instead, if you have a new thought, just append it to your last post if nobody responded to it.

[bitcoinstonk]

Pro tip: don't write consecutive posts in a row. It looks like you're just trying to bump the topic to the top of the board and your posts might get deleted. Instead, if you have a new thought, just append it to your last post if nobody responded to it.

Thanks for the tip!

[DeathAngel]

CW just won’t stop will he, the lengths this guy goes to have no limits. As said the reports are that he wants to fork bitcoin so he can get the 100,000+ early bitcoin’s that he says are his 

The scary thing is that this guy has a huge army of people who say they believe he is Satoshi on Twitter & probably elsewhere too. Can people be that dumb or are they just BSV investors turning a blind eye to his nonsense because they want their bags pumped.

Surely nobody sane believes his claims?

[digaran]

Thanks for the tip!

Here is another tip, Bitcoin developer have no contractual relationship with the users, bitcoin software is open source, that's why there is no terms of service included, because the software it self is not a service, therefore the developers have no obligations to users. Furthermore they work as volunteers on the software and could at any moment quit their voluntary duty as a developer, with that being said, only some idiot you call judge/ court, would deem such claim lawful.
Bitcoin developers could actually sue CW if he manages to call them to the court, I'd suggest him to consider this fact before embarrassing himself any more.  

Edit to include this for the lawyers and judges if they missed it.
Source: https://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

[franky1]

easy debate id make is
CSW claims that BSV is "his bitcoin" in CSW's opinion. thus he is fighting to gain access to BSV coins as thats "his bitcoin" which he invented and is his property
which he has always and including now had full control of.. BSV has its own developer team maintaining his BSV. and has the ledger entries of the 1fee's on his ledger, which he can edit as he pleases. the devs cited in this case have nothing to do with the ledger CSW claims as "the bitcoin"/his bitcoin, only CSW developer team does, so CSW's bsv developers can at their own discretion change their own code to however they like. case closed, no need to bother any other devs.