To let you know what I have been doing over the last 6 months where I was quiet...
I have been planning.
In my claim, BTC Core is likely to seek to strike out key components that challenge the integrity and legitimacy of their version of the Bitcoin protocol.
First, they would almost certainly aim to strike out allegations of misrepresentation, particularly those that assert they have fundamentally altered Bitcoin's protocol from what Satoshi Nakamoto originally designed. They would argue that the protocol changes, such as SegWit and Taproot, are improvements rather than deviations, and that these claims lack a legal basis.
BTC Core (B&B) would also attempt to strike out any claims suggesting that they are involved in passing off an altered or inferior product as the original Bitcoin.
Their argument would likely rest on the fact that they control the Bitcoin repository and have continued to present BTC as the true Bitcoin, claiming that these accusations are speculative or unfounded.
Additionally, BTC Core may try to strike out arguments relating to fiduciary duty, particularly any claim that the developers had an obligation to preserve the original protocol as created by Satoshi Nakamoto.
They would likely argue that there is no legal basis for such a fiduciary duty in the context of an open-source software project and that developers have the right to evolve the software as they see fit.
Finally, BTC Core may seek to strike out claims related to promissory estoppel, especially those that suggest Satoshi Nakamoto made promises regarding the immutability of Bitcoin's protocol that bind BTC Core developers.
They would likely argue that no such explicit promise was made and that, even if one were inferred, it does not create legal obligations that prevent protocol changes.
BTC Core would aim to strike out portions of the claim by filing a strike-out application under Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 3.4, arguing that parts of the claim either disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, are frivolous or vexatious, or represent an abuse of process.
Their argument would focus on the legal insufficiency of the claims and aim to remove significant portions before trial.
BTC Core would argue that the claim alleging misrepresentation—that they have fundamentally changed the protocol from Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision—lacks a legal foundation.
They would assert that Bitcoin has always been subject to ongoing development and that changes like SegWit and Taproot were introduced through the BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) process, which reflects community consensus rather than unilateral decision-making. They would argue that such modifications do not constitute misrepresentation and are instead valid evolutionary improvements to the protocol.
BTC Core would attempt to strike out any arguments asserting that they owe a fiduciary duty to Bitcoin users or the wider community. They would likely argue that Bitcoin is an open-source project without a centralized governing body or a formalized relationship between the developers and users that would create any fiduciary obligations.
1/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 20, 2024
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1847945247583617431.html
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1577
I have been planning.
In my claim, BTC Core is likely to seek to strike out key components that challenge the integrity and legitimacy of their version of the Bitcoin protocol.
First, they would almost certainly aim to strike out allegations of misrepresentation, particularly those that assert they have fundamentally altered Bitcoin's protocol from what Satoshi Nakamoto originally designed. They would argue that the protocol changes, such as SegWit and Taproot, are improvements rather than deviations, and that these claims lack a legal basis.
BTC Core (B&B) would also attempt to strike out any claims suggesting that they are involved in passing off an altered or inferior product as the original Bitcoin.
Their argument would likely rest on the fact that they control the Bitcoin repository and have continued to present BTC as the true Bitcoin, claiming that these accusations are speculative or unfounded.
Additionally, BTC Core may try to strike out arguments relating to fiduciary duty, particularly any claim that the developers had an obligation to preserve the original protocol as created by Satoshi Nakamoto.
They would likely argue that there is no legal basis for such a fiduciary duty in the context of an open-source software project and that developers have the right to evolve the software as they see fit.
Finally, BTC Core may seek to strike out claims related to promissory estoppel, especially those that suggest Satoshi Nakamoto made promises regarding the immutability of Bitcoin's protocol that bind BTC Core developers.
They would likely argue that no such explicit promise was made and that, even if one were inferred, it does not create legal obligations that prevent protocol changes.
BTC Core would aim to strike out portions of the claim by filing a strike-out application under Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 3.4, arguing that parts of the claim either disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, are frivolous or vexatious, or represent an abuse of process.
Their argument would focus on the legal insufficiency of the claims and aim to remove significant portions before trial.
BTC Core would argue that the claim alleging misrepresentation—that they have fundamentally changed the protocol from Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision—lacks a legal foundation.
They would assert that Bitcoin has always been subject to ongoing development and that changes like SegWit and Taproot were introduced through the BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) process, which reflects community consensus rather than unilateral decision-making. They would argue that such modifications do not constitute misrepresentation and are instead valid evolutionary improvements to the protocol.
BTC Core would attempt to strike out any arguments asserting that they owe a fiduciary duty to Bitcoin users or the wider community. They would likely argue that Bitcoin is an open-source project without a centralized governing body or a formalized relationship between the developers and users that would create any fiduciary obligations.
1/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 20, 2024
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1847945247583617431.html
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1577
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment