2/2
The logical conclusion in all of this is to very simply not attempt to prevent justice because in the coming cases there will be no way that all the attempted provisions of justice will not be brought to light. We will be ensuring that forensic testimony from respected individuals demonstrates the nature of what I’ve been explaining incredibly clearly. Moreover, the simple fact that we can implement controls of this nature overrides any argument saying that you can’t.
Miners are not issuing but rather act under a unilateral contract. You cannot enforce the rules against a miner unless they are acting in breach of contract. To be in breach of contract, they have to violate the conditions set by the fiduciary managing the network which in this case happens to be the development group.
If miners do not wish to follow the rules, they are not bound because it is a unilateral contract. They have the option to simply stop mining.
Any exchange that decided to list such a fork would also be in contempt of court and subject to freezing orders that would cut them off from all banking, limit them from using AWS, Google, cloud services, DNS, Internet protocol routing…
You get the gist
You see, people seem to think that they can simply avoid all of this but there are interesting avenues that come with contempt of court even globally. Not only is DNS available as an option to take against a rogue miner or exchange, but additionally filters could be imposed in BGP routing tables.
Effectively, the node or exchange seeking to breach court orders would be completely shut off from the Internet. Those who have been involved in Internet gambling understand just how effectively this can work. It costs money to do but then, I have considered all of that in my actions.
So the simple answer is that miners enforce rules, but they don't create them. The requirement to implement those rules would come to a developer group following a court order.
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614448358445100?thread_ts=1614448358.445100&cid=C5131HKFX
2/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2035
The logical conclusion in all of this is to very simply not attempt to prevent justice because in the coming cases there will be no way that all the attempted provisions of justice will not be brought to light. We will be ensuring that forensic testimony from respected individuals demonstrates the nature of what I’ve been explaining incredibly clearly. Moreover, the simple fact that we can implement controls of this nature overrides any argument saying that you can’t.
Miners are not issuing but rather act under a unilateral contract. You cannot enforce the rules against a miner unless they are acting in breach of contract. To be in breach of contract, they have to violate the conditions set by the fiduciary managing the network which in this case happens to be the development group.
If miners do not wish to follow the rules, they are not bound because it is a unilateral contract. They have the option to simply stop mining.
Any exchange that decided to list such a fork would also be in contempt of court and subject to freezing orders that would cut them off from all banking, limit them from using AWS, Google, cloud services, DNS, Internet protocol routing…
You get the gist
You see, people seem to think that they can simply avoid all of this but there are interesting avenues that come with contempt of court even globally. Not only is DNS available as an option to take against a rogue miner or exchange, but additionally filters could be imposed in BGP routing tables.
Effectively, the node or exchange seeking to breach court orders would be completely shut off from the Internet. Those who have been involved in Internet gambling understand just how effectively this can work. It costs money to do but then, I have considered all of that in my actions.
So the simple answer is that miners enforce rules, but they don't create them. The requirement to implement those rules would come to a developer group following a court order.
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614448358445100?thread_ts=1614448358.445100&cid=C5131HKFX
2/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2035
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment