Here's the kicker...
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.
To argue that BSV being different somehow justifies BTC Core’s misrepresentation is to engage in a type of intellectual dishonesty that sidesteps the reality of the situation. The issue at hand is not about what other versions of Bitcoin exist, but whether BTC Core is still upholding the principles that were embedded in the original Bitcoin protocol, as conceived by Satoshi Nakamoto. BTC Core's defenders may argue that the mere existence of BSV somehow excuses their actions, but this is a distraction, not a defense.
While I'm not saying that the rules of BSV are different, it isn't a defence for BTC Core to use.
Consider what is fundamentally at stake here: Bitcoin was introduced as a system designed with a specific set of rules—rules meant to be immutable, functioning as the backbone of a system of value for value. Satoshi never intended for Bitcoin to be transformed or diluted by a series of changes driven by the whims of developers who are no longer upholding the objectivist principles of the original protocol. The alterations made by BTC Core—including SegWit, Taproot, and the shift toward high transaction fees—are not mere improvements; they are a departure from the original vision that promised a system capable of small casual transactions and traceable, pseudonymous activity.
The claim that the existence of BSV makes any accusation of passing off invalid is an absurd notion. Passing off is not a matter of popularity or market share; it’s about substance. The issue isn’t which version of Bitcoin is more dominant, but whether BTC Core has altered the essence of what Bitcoin was meant to be while still calling it by the same name. This is akin to someone altering the blueprints of a skyscraper and still calling it the same building, despite changing its structural foundation.
Satoshi's Bitcoin was created with a purpose—a system that promised immutability, traceability, and a platform for honest trade, where intellectual property and the rights of individuals to engage in voluntary exchange were respected. Those who now control BTC have not merely allowed Bitcoin to evolve; they have subverted its original purpose. Their argument that BSV exists does nothing to justify their departure from the core tenets of Bitcoin’s design.
I will premise this saying unless you are Satoshi Nakamoto...
The existence of BSV is irrelevant to the question of whether BTC Core has misrepresented BTC. If BTC no longer adheres to the fundamental principles that were laid out by Satoshi Nakamoto, then it has ceased to be Bitcoin in any meaningful sense. Just as Ayn Rand argued that collectivists hijack language and meaning, turning words into weapons to further their agenda, so too has BTC Core hijacked the name of Bitcoin, transforming it into something that betrays its original spirit.
If they wish to argue that BTC is a different system, let them call it something else, but to pretend that they have preserved the original intent of Bitcoin is to engage in a form of intellectual dishonesty that undermines the very integrity of the system. The marketplace of ideas is one where truth and clarity should reign, and the idea that BSV’s existence somehow excuses the actions of BTC Core is merely an attempt to obfuscate the reality of what has happened: they have altered Bitcoin, and in doing so, they are passing off something radically different as the original.
1/3
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 20, 2024
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1847967861265801438.html
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1586
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.
To argue that BSV being different somehow justifies BTC Core’s misrepresentation is to engage in a type of intellectual dishonesty that sidesteps the reality of the situation. The issue at hand is not about what other versions of Bitcoin exist, but whether BTC Core is still upholding the principles that were embedded in the original Bitcoin protocol, as conceived by Satoshi Nakamoto. BTC Core's defenders may argue that the mere existence of BSV somehow excuses their actions, but this is a distraction, not a defense.
While I'm not saying that the rules of BSV are different, it isn't a defence for BTC Core to use.
Consider what is fundamentally at stake here: Bitcoin was introduced as a system designed with a specific set of rules—rules meant to be immutable, functioning as the backbone of a system of value for value. Satoshi never intended for Bitcoin to be transformed or diluted by a series of changes driven by the whims of developers who are no longer upholding the objectivist principles of the original protocol. The alterations made by BTC Core—including SegWit, Taproot, and the shift toward high transaction fees—are not mere improvements; they are a departure from the original vision that promised a system capable of small casual transactions and traceable, pseudonymous activity.
The claim that the existence of BSV makes any accusation of passing off invalid is an absurd notion. Passing off is not a matter of popularity or market share; it’s about substance. The issue isn’t which version of Bitcoin is more dominant, but whether BTC Core has altered the essence of what Bitcoin was meant to be while still calling it by the same name. This is akin to someone altering the blueprints of a skyscraper and still calling it the same building, despite changing its structural foundation.
Satoshi's Bitcoin was created with a purpose—a system that promised immutability, traceability, and a platform for honest trade, where intellectual property and the rights of individuals to engage in voluntary exchange were respected. Those who now control BTC have not merely allowed Bitcoin to evolve; they have subverted its original purpose. Their argument that BSV exists does nothing to justify their departure from the core tenets of Bitcoin’s design.
I will premise this saying unless you are Satoshi Nakamoto...
The existence of BSV is irrelevant to the question of whether BTC Core has misrepresented BTC. If BTC no longer adheres to the fundamental principles that were laid out by Satoshi Nakamoto, then it has ceased to be Bitcoin in any meaningful sense. Just as Ayn Rand argued that collectivists hijack language and meaning, turning words into weapons to further their agenda, so too has BTC Core hijacked the name of Bitcoin, transforming it into something that betrays its original spirit.
If they wish to argue that BTC is a different system, let them call it something else, but to pretend that they have preserved the original intent of Bitcoin is to engage in a form of intellectual dishonesty that undermines the very integrity of the system. The marketplace of ideas is one where truth and clarity should reign, and the idea that BSV’s existence somehow excuses the actions of BTC Core is merely an attempt to obfuscate the reality of what has happened: they have altered Bitcoin, and in doing so, they are passing off something radically different as the original.
1/3
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 20, 2024
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1847967861265801438.html
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1586
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment