In the end, truth cannot be subordinated to convenience. The existence of BSV does nothing to excuse the fact that BTC Core has transformed Bitcoin into something it was never intended to be, and they should be held accountable for this misrepresentation. To suggest otherwise is to engage in the same collectivist deception that Ayn Rand fought against her entire life.

So let me detail each of the points.
Arguing that BSV (Bitcoin Satoshi Vision) is different from BTC does not provide a valid defense for BTC Core in a passing off case for several key reasons:

1. Passing Off Focuses on Misrepresentation:
The core of a passing off claim is misrepresentation—that BTC Core is falsely presenting their version of Bitcoin (BTC) as the original Bitcoin when, in fact, significant protocol changes have fundamentally altered it from Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision. Whether BSV or any other fork exists is irrelevant to the question of whether BTC Core is misleading the public by representing BTC as Bitcoin, particularly if those changes mean that BTC no longer adheres to the core principles that defined Bitcoin at its inception.

Even if BSV was to operate differently, the passing off claim is based on the notion that BTC Core has altered the protocol in ways that make it substantially different from what Satoshi designed, and yet, it continues to market itself as the original Bitcoin. The existence of BSV or any other fork does not address whether BTC Core is still portraying itself as the original Bitcoin, despite those differences.
2. Satoshi’s Original Vision:
BSV argues that it adheres to Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision by maintaining the protocol as set forth in the original Bitcoin White Paper—designed for small, casual transactions, pseudonymity, and an immutable blockchain. In contrast, BTC has incorporated significant changes, such as SegWit and Taproot, which alter the protocol and the ability for small transactions to be efficiently conducted.

Even if BSV operates as a separate network (it isn't, it is Bitcoin and this is an argument), the issue in the passing off case is whether BTC Core is falsely presenting BTC as consistent with Satoshi's original design, when in fact, it has diverged.



The mere existence of BSV does not absolve BTC Core from the accusation that BTC is no longer what was promised by Satoshi.
3. Consumer Confusion and Misrepresentation:
Passing off also centers on whether the public is being misled into believing that BTC remains the same as the Bitcoin described in the original White Paper. The fact that BSV exists as a separate network does not change the reality that the BTC Core developers are still marketing BTC as Bitcoin, despite protocol changes that contradict Satoshi’s original principles.

BTC Core cannot claim that the existence of BSV or other forks diminishes their responsibility to accurately represent BTC. If they continue to market BTC as the "true Bitcoin" or the version most aligned with Satoshi’s vision, while making changes that alter its functionality and intent, they are still engaging in misrepresentation, regardless of what other networks do.

BTC does not scale. That is required for electronic cash.
4. No Automatic Transfer of Identity:
The identity of Bitcoin does not automatically transfer to whichever fork becomes most popular or retains the name. If BTC Core has altered the protocol in a way that diverges from Satoshi’s original vision, simply being the dominant chain does not excuse them from the accusation of passing off.

2/3
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 20, 2024    
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1847967861265801438.html

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1586