Topic: * Note to BTC Core Devs, BitFury is Going to Sue you if you Change the PoW Algo (Read 1452 times)

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.

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....

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

.. 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.

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.

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.