To claim that the existence of BSV somehow invalidates the case against BTC Core is not only disingenuous but demonstrates a failure to grasp the essence of the matter.
The existence of what BTC Core refer to as competing forks like BSV does not absolve BTC Core from the accusation that they have engaged in passing off. The question is not about popularity, market share, or the existence of another chain—it is about integrity, representation, and the preservation of what Bitcoin was designed to be.
Bitcoin, in its original form, was built on principles that were as clear as they were unchanging. Satoshi Nakamoto’s design promised immutability—a system that would not be altered at the whim of developers or transient technological trends.
Yet, what has occurred under BTC Core is precisely the kind of ideological erosion that Rand warned about in the collectivist degradation of ideals. The alterations to the protocol—such as SegWit and Taproot—have steered BTC away from its original intent, fundamentally changing its very purpose.
To argue that because BSV exists, BTC Core is justified in marketing their version as the original Bitcoin is an exercise in evasion. The heart of a passing off claim is whether the public is being misled into believing that what is being offered is the same product, despite material changes.
In this case, BTC Core’s changes have transformed the system to a degree that it no longer aligns with the design and values Satoshi laid out. The alternative claim that BSV is different, or that it represents a purer version of Bitcoin, does not excuse BTC Core’s responsibility to accurately represent what their version of Bitcoin is. Not even as the original Bitcoin.
Satoshi’s Bitcoin was never about centralized control, nor was it about arbitrary shifts in design. It was about maintaining a decentralized system where individuals could trade value for value without interference, where the protocol was stable, and where traceability ensured integrity. The decisions made by BTC Core to introduce high transaction fees and push for off-chain solutions directly contradict this vision. This is not an evolution, it is a subversion.
One of the greatest dangers in modern intellectual life is the use of language to obscure rather than clarify.
The collectivist mindset that has taken hold within the BTC Core community has twisted the concept of Bitcoin into something it was never meant to be, while still calling it Bitcoin.
Ayn Rand understood the destructive power of such distortions. She recognized that when the meaning of words is warped, the reality they describe is lost. That is precisely what has happened here. BTC Core has altered Bitcoin, but they refuse to alter the name, and in doing so, they have misled the public about what Bitcoin now is.
The idea that the mere existence of BSV negates these facts is absurd. Intellectual property, which Rand so fiercely defended, is about more than just ownership—it is about the integrity of creation.
Bitcoin’s integrity has been undermined by these changes, and the counter argument that BSV adheres more closely to Satoshi’s original design does not excuse the fact that BTC Core is still marketing something fundamentally different as Bitcoin.
If we are to understand what is truly at stake, we must reject this collectivist justification.
1/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 20, 2024
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1847987515204219158.html
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1586
The existence of what BTC Core refer to as competing forks like BSV does not absolve BTC Core from the accusation that they have engaged in passing off. The question is not about popularity, market share, or the existence of another chain—it is about integrity, representation, and the preservation of what Bitcoin was designed to be.
Bitcoin, in its original form, was built on principles that were as clear as they were unchanging. Satoshi Nakamoto’s design promised immutability—a system that would not be altered at the whim of developers or transient technological trends.
Yet, what has occurred under BTC Core is precisely the kind of ideological erosion that Rand warned about in the collectivist degradation of ideals. The alterations to the protocol—such as SegWit and Taproot—have steered BTC away from its original intent, fundamentally changing its very purpose.
To argue that because BSV exists, BTC Core is justified in marketing their version as the original Bitcoin is an exercise in evasion. The heart of a passing off claim is whether the public is being misled into believing that what is being offered is the same product, despite material changes.
In this case, BTC Core’s changes have transformed the system to a degree that it no longer aligns with the design and values Satoshi laid out. The alternative claim that BSV is different, or that it represents a purer version of Bitcoin, does not excuse BTC Core’s responsibility to accurately represent what their version of Bitcoin is. Not even as the original Bitcoin.
Satoshi’s Bitcoin was never about centralized control, nor was it about arbitrary shifts in design. It was about maintaining a decentralized system where individuals could trade value for value without interference, where the protocol was stable, and where traceability ensured integrity. The decisions made by BTC Core to introduce high transaction fees and push for off-chain solutions directly contradict this vision. This is not an evolution, it is a subversion.
One of the greatest dangers in modern intellectual life is the use of language to obscure rather than clarify.
The collectivist mindset that has taken hold within the BTC Core community has twisted the concept of Bitcoin into something it was never meant to be, while still calling it Bitcoin.
Ayn Rand understood the destructive power of such distortions. She recognized that when the meaning of words is warped, the reality they describe is lost. That is precisely what has happened here. BTC Core has altered Bitcoin, but they refuse to alter the name, and in doing so, they have misled the public about what Bitcoin now is.
The idea that the mere existence of BSV negates these facts is absurd. Intellectual property, which Rand so fiercely defended, is about more than just ownership—it is about the integrity of creation.
Bitcoin’s integrity has been undermined by these changes, and the counter argument that BSV adheres more closely to Satoshi’s original design does not excuse the fact that BTC Core is still marketing something fundamentally different as Bitcoin.
If we are to understand what is truly at stake, we must reject this collectivist justification.
1/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 20, 2024
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1847987515204219158.html
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1586
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment