Bitcoin Developers Push Back Against Craig Wright's Claim to Billions of Dollars...
source link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/23/08/22/2247223/bitcoin-developers-push-back-against-craig-wrights-claim-to-billions-of-dollars-in-bitcoin
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
Bitcoin Developers Push Back Against Craig Wright's Claim to Billions of Dollars in Bitcoin
Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
binspamdupenotthebestofftopicslownewsdaystalestupid freshfunnyinsightfulinterestingmaybe offtopicflamebaittrollredundantoverrated insightfulinterestinginformativefunnyunderrated descriptive typodupeerror
Do you develop on GitHub? You can keep using GitHub but automatically sync your GitHub releases to SourceForge quickly and easily with this tool so your projects have a backup location, and get your project in front of SourceForge's nearly 30 million monthly users. It takes less than a minute. Get new users downloading your project releases today!
-
›
Interesting as instructing Barristers etc. at the High Court costs very large sums of money indeed and they don't work on a "no win, no fee" basis unless a litigation fund bankrolls it.
Someone has very deep pockets.
-
Craig Wright has convinced people to lend him money against Bitcoin that he fraudulently claims he owns
-
My god... borrowing against fictional assets? That should surely limit his prospects. He can only hope to ever become... president...:D
-
-
If he's going at it through the UK courts he should figure out how to sue them for libel instead of "fiduciary duty failings", that's as easy a win as suing for patent infringement in East Texas.
-
-
is that even possible?
-
under the laws for commoditys?
-
If you're asking if it's technically possible, yes, it is. Just like Thompson's compiler, you have to trust the system because when it becomes untrusted you don't own what you think you own. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdrile... [cmu.edu]
-
For it to be possible, more than half the network would have to agree, which they won't.
-
More than half the mining power. But if technically implemented this would cause a hard fork creating a new craig-is-god fork which with probably zero valued coins.
-
-
-
It would need every miner to accept the transaction, which would be unique on the ledger, otherwise a fork would occur.
So, in theory yes, in practicality, getting all those miners to agree, across dozens of countries and legal jurisdictions Fuck no.
-
It would be a hard fork, causing a split in the network. It's highly likely no one would mine the fork with the ownership change, nor would anyone run nodes on that fork. So, he could get the coins on that chain, but they would be essentially worthless.
-
Why wouldn't it be?
-
-
Craig Wright should claims he owns his house because of some "deed of trust" or "note" or something.
I want the legal system to change what that deed means so when it says "Owned by Craig Wright" just rewrite it to "NOT owned by Craig Wright."
It's not fraud if the whole system says "this is not the way it was, and that's just the way it's going to be."That's the problem with fraudsters, conmen, and election-deniers. They just keep going and going and going. A "setback" just means try it again two years lat
-
by Ogive17 ( 691899 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2023 @09:26PM (#63789332)
When I saw this was the name of his company, it immediately sounded like a farce meant to mock crypto currency.
Maybe this is all simply a way of discrediting the entire industry? -
It appears possible that 12 programmers have enough control of the Bitcoin system that they could override the blockchain system and a sign ownership of coins to whoever hearts desire. But it's totes decentralized.
Seriously is this guy just a lunatic or can those 12 programmers really do what he's asking them to?-
It's already been done at least once.
Somebody took advantage of a glitch in the system at a crypto company, and took a bunch of Bitcoin out, they were not entitled to. The developers, took their money back, since they own in the code, they were able to do it...
-
This is nothing like that. At all. That was a glitch in the system that the entire network agreed upon to run a fix for. It benefited the health of the network and its users to fix it.
Absolutely no one would run a node with code to give Craig Wright any Bitcoins he claims are his. It benefits no one but that conman and compromises the inegrity of the Bitcoin network. And there is alternative software to run a node other than Bitcoin Core.
The network majority has to agree to any changes made. It is a feature
-
This is false. No bitcoin transaction has ever been "reversed" or "charged back". Ever. You need to include citations if you are going to make such an absurd claim.
The most well known crypto to have done something like this is ethereum, most notably after the first DOA release [arstechnica.com], but there have been other events as well.
/. will never stop being salty about crypto
-
I'm pretty sure that never happened. I think you are thinking of the ETH DAO reversal.
-
-
He could get what he's asking for, but it would cause a hard fork. The coins with the redirected ownership would be on a chain that no on uses nor mines, and the coins on that chain would be worthless.
-
Bitcoin IS decentralized. All blocks in the blockchain (and transactions in a block) have to be verified by miners. There are rules for the blocks (for example, the block cannot be above a certain size, hash has to be SHA256 and follow the requirements based on difficulty etc).
You can modify the software to accept different blocks or transactions. However, those blocks would be incompatible with the old version of the software, so the miners who run the old version will not include those blocks/transactions
-
-
Start by not calling him Dr.
-
Hes the digital equivalent of a Sovereign Citizen
What he believes, goes. What the law says, or other people believe, is false.
-
He's got to have a nuke strapped to his motorcyle for that to be true.
-
-
-
The very idea of block chain is so that no one can dispute the ownership. Either you have it or you don't. If you lose your key that's your problem. This guy 100% did not create bitcoin.
-
So the claimed "inventor" of a decentralized currency want to get rich by a fiat transfer of value to him?
If this goes though, I wonder how many people will abandon Bitcoin, since they will have proved that it does not live up to its claims of decentralization, security and anonymity.
-
They can't be transferred to him without a hard fork. To be certain, everyone would abandon the fork that had the ownership reassignment, but there would still be a chain where the coins were not reassigned.
-
But if the court decides in favor of this man, then such a chain could be declared illegal, and exchanges trading with it could face legal troubles, further litigation etc.
-
-
-
If Wright gets his way, all open source development would be at risk of fiduciary liability.
Banking systems running on linux? The SCO v. IBM case pales in comparison for the legal ramifications this one might cause.
-
If I understand correctly, that means there's an address that owns 111,000 bitcoins, and that no one else is claiming ownership of it, or simply transferring the coins to a different address. I could understand a few blocks being mined and not claimed, but 111,000?
Assuming they don't belong to the alleged fraudster, does that mean those coins have been lost entirely?
-
Correct, they are lost, presumably, forever.
Since you are interested, last I checked, the total number of "lost" (unrecoverable private keys) coins is around 1 million.
-
How do you identify bitcoins that have an unrecoverable private key?
-
That's impossible. You'd never know if someone has a private key buried under their garage...
-
-
-
-
So why is he still given this much attention by the media?
-
For our entertainment. Same with the attention given to the Sussexes, and the new Snow non-White woke shit storm.
-
-
You have after all repeatedly claimed to have invented bitcoin. Why do you need developers?
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK