While open source allows contributions and adaptations, it does not allow a party to unilaterally alter the fundamental nature of the system and still claim it to be the same. The system’s essence, its immutability, was an integral part of the public offer made by Satoshi.
As such, those who seek to modify Bitcoin’s protocol without adhering to the original design are acting outside their legal rights, and promissory estoppel precludes them from asserting otherwise.
In British Horseracing Board Ltd v William Hill Organisation Ltd [2005] and Fixtures Marketing Ltd v OPAP (2004), it was established that database rights could also exist for those who made ongoing contributions and investments in the maintenance of the database.
Similarly, while Satoshi may hold the sui generis rights to the original blockchain as the creator, my claim is based on his substantial ongoing investments in maintaining and extending the Bitcoin blockchain in accordance with the immutable rules set out by Satoshi.
This derivative right is recognised under British law and protected under the Database Directive, ensuring that contributors and maintainers of a database can claim legal protection even if they are not the original creators.
Therefore, the argument that BTC Core developers have the right to modify the Bitcoin protocol is legally unsound. Satoshi Nakamoto’s promise—enshrined in the Bitcoin White Paper and reinforced by the doctrine of promissory estoppel—prevents any future parties from altering the system's fundamental structure.
Satoshi’s promise was one of immutability, and any deviation from that promise constitutes a violation of the rights of those who relied upon that immutability. BTC Core, by altering the protocol, has not only breached the trust placed in the system but also disregarded the binding legal obligations that were established through promissory estoppel.
If the argument I presented was that "Dr Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto" (I am not in the claim), then it would logically follow that Dr Wright cannot invoke promissory estoppel against himself, as one cannot be both the promisor and the promisee.
However, with COPA and other parties asserting that Dr Wright is not Satoshi, and by challenging his ability to claim ownership rights over Bitcoin as its creator, they inadvertently open the door for promissory estoppel to be invoked.
Only by removing Dr Wright’s claim to ownership of the original system, the legal framework allows him, and indeed anyone who relied on the promise made by Satoshi Nakamoto—that the protocol was set in stone and immutable—to invoke promissory estoppel against any party attempting to alter the system.
This shift not only enables me to assert that others are bound by the original promise of immutability, but it also solidifies the argument that BTC Core and other developers lack the authority to modify the protocol, as the system’s promise remains binding on all subsequent participants.
• • •
2/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 20, 2024
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1847822758022893974.html
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1553
As such, those who seek to modify Bitcoin’s protocol without adhering to the original design are acting outside their legal rights, and promissory estoppel precludes them from asserting otherwise.
In British Horseracing Board Ltd v William Hill Organisation Ltd [2005] and Fixtures Marketing Ltd v OPAP (2004), it was established that database rights could also exist for those who made ongoing contributions and investments in the maintenance of the database.
Similarly, while Satoshi may hold the sui generis rights to the original blockchain as the creator, my claim is based on his substantial ongoing investments in maintaining and extending the Bitcoin blockchain in accordance with the immutable rules set out by Satoshi.
This derivative right is recognised under British law and protected under the Database Directive, ensuring that contributors and maintainers of a database can claim legal protection even if they are not the original creators.
Therefore, the argument that BTC Core developers have the right to modify the Bitcoin protocol is legally unsound. Satoshi Nakamoto’s promise—enshrined in the Bitcoin White Paper and reinforced by the doctrine of promissory estoppel—prevents any future parties from altering the system's fundamental structure.
Satoshi’s promise was one of immutability, and any deviation from that promise constitutes a violation of the rights of those who relied upon that immutability. BTC Core, by altering the protocol, has not only breached the trust placed in the system but also disregarded the binding legal obligations that were established through promissory estoppel.
If the argument I presented was that "Dr Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto" (I am not in the claim), then it would logically follow that Dr Wright cannot invoke promissory estoppel against himself, as one cannot be both the promisor and the promisee.
However, with COPA and other parties asserting that Dr Wright is not Satoshi, and by challenging his ability to claim ownership rights over Bitcoin as its creator, they inadvertently open the door for promissory estoppel to be invoked.
Only by removing Dr Wright’s claim to ownership of the original system, the legal framework allows him, and indeed anyone who relied on the promise made by Satoshi Nakamoto—that the protocol was set in stone and immutable—to invoke promissory estoppel against any party attempting to alter the system.
This shift not only enables me to assert that others are bound by the original promise of immutability, but it also solidifies the argument that BTC Core and other developers lack the authority to modify the protocol, as the system’s promise remains binding on all subsequent participants.
• • •
2/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 20, 2024
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1847822758022893974.html
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1553
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment