While my particulars at 245 may appear to some as a technicality, the distinction between original ownership of database rights and the ongoing derivative rights held by those who continue to invest in the maintenance and development of that database is legally and fundamentally significant.

In the case of Bitcoin, this distinction is not only relevant but intrinsic to its very design.
Bitcoin’s protocol, as set forth by Satoshi Nakamoto (not a part of the case), was deliberately constructed to be set in stone—an immutable system.

Satoshi made a public promise that the core principles of the Bitcoin system would not change.

This promise extends beyond Satoshi as the original creator and binds anyone who interacts with or builds upon the system thereafter. This immutability and the accompanying guarantee of stability was not merely a technical decision; it was a fundamental assurance upon which the entire network of users and developers relied. This promise, made publicly and relied upon by those who engaged with Bitcoin, invokes the principle of promissory estoppel.
In British law, the doctrine of promissory estoppel prevents a party from going back on a promise when the other party has relied upon it to their detriment.

In Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130, Denning J established that if a promise was made, and the other party relied on that promise, the promisor would be estopped from reneging on it, even if no formal contract existed.

In this context, Satoshi Nakamoto’s public declarations about the immutability of the Bitcoin protocol function as a form of unilateral promise, which binds not only Satoshi but also any subsequent parties—such as BTC Core developers—who interact with and continue to develop the system.
The promise made by Satoshi, that the Bitcoin system would not change, forms the core premise of Bitcoin’s goodwill and the trust placed in it by early adopters, developers, and users.

Promissory estoppel applies here because it is not simply the original database that is protected by this assurance—it is the continued reliance of those who maintain the system as designed.



BTC Core developers, by modifying Bitcoin’s protocol, have violated this unilateral contract, which was set by Satoshi’s original promise.

Under the principle of estoppel, BTC Core does not have the legal authority to alter the system, and any claims to the contrary are legally invalid.
Furthermore, British case law demonstrates that Satoshi Nakamoto’s promise is binding not only on the original parties but also on those who come after. In Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] Ch 179, the Court of Appeal held that promissory estoppel could apply where a representation was made and relied upon, binding even successors who had not been party to the original dealings.

Here, Satoshi Nakamoto’s promise binds not only Satoshi, but any party who seeks to manage or influence the Bitcoin protocol.

The principle prevents future developers or participants—such as BTC Core—from altering the system without breaching the original promise of immutability.
The nature of Bitcoin's decentralised structure only further reinforces this position.

The Bitcoin White Paper and the related writings of Satoshi explicitly outlined that the system would operate under a fixed protocol, with no central authority having the right or ability to make changes. The concept of open source does not negate this.

1/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 20, 2024  
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1847822758022893974.html

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1553