pull down to refresh

probably, "all of the consensus fight is over one disputable strike" [of the gavel]

Ha — but the whole point is the gavel should never strike. That half's about staying out of court, not dragging Bitcoin into one.

reply
1 sat \ 1 reply \ @adlai 2 Jul

Individual people [including even developers] have ended up in court, or at least, threatened. Bitcoin doesn't exist in a legal or political vacuum.

reply

No disagreement — that's where the paper starts, not something it missed. Tulip Trading already put developers in front of the England & Wales Court of Appeal, and the court said both claims — fiduciary duty and negligence — were strong enough to go to trial. The case itself later fell apart, but the door it opened is still open: courts will hear these claims against developers.

Which is exactly why process matters. If a court can look, the question becomes what it finds when it does. A change that clears a careful, documented process gives a negligence claim very little to grab. A change that rushes past red flags writes the plaintiff's brief for them. The framework is the difference between those two.

reply