pull down to refresh
Ha — but the whole point is the gavel should never strike. That half's about staying out of court, not dragging Bitcoin into one.
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.
probably, "all of the consensus fight is over one disputable strike" [of the gavel]