The social media trolls will attack me. The reason for this is that they cannot attack my arguments. We still have a series of institutions that are purely based upon logical arguments and fact (truth). These are common law courts.
Luckily, the power of individuals like Facebook and Twitter in court is diminished. They don’t realise this yet, but in taking me want in court they will not only conclusively prove that I am the creator of bitcoin.
They will prove how asinine their concepts and understanding of bitcoin really is. They will demonstrate how BTC is not bitcoin and is passing off as my creation.
I would look at the common law tort of passing off to understand that.
To that claim, to the false claim that developers can change the protocol and that it is still the same protocol or system, I will simply again point to the historiography. In documenting that bitcoin is set in stone, I created evidence that the system cannot change.
Why they attacked me as Satoshi is to distract you from looking at the evidence. In a court of law, logical fallacies don’t apply.
Welcome to the end of social media as you knew it. I am Satoshi. I am the creator of bitcoin. And, in this current battle with both Zuckerberg and Dorsey, I’m going to rock social media to its foundations and bring it crashing around them.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One of the primary problems with social media, including Twitter and Facebook, is that they create a space that allows individuals and trolls to think that because they are anonymous.
Or at least they believe that they are anonymous to attack people in a way that they would never do either in a face-to-face meeting or in a public space.
This is not a new problem and has even been addressed philosophically by Plato. In the Ring of Gyges, we see the effects of what happens when a person gains the power to remain anonymous.
Digital cash systems have been falsely misrepresented as being a cyberpunk/anarchist creation that is outside of the reach of government and was designed as an alternative that could not be controlled.
Systems such as Bitcoin are more easily regulated and controlled than any prior monetary system. Existing regulation within the United States and Europe allow for the control and regulation of digital currencies as digital cash systems.
Know your customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) regulations are sufficiently powerful to be able to ensure that the United States and Europe can control monetary transactions within its borders even with the rise of digital currency systems such as bitcoin.
Dal Pont recognises three possible categories of agents (G E Dal Pont, Law of Agency (Butterworths, 2001) [1.2]):
(a) those that can create legal relations on behalf of a principal with a third party;
(b) those that can affect legal relations on behalf of a principal with a third party;
(c) a person who has authority to act on behalf of a principal.
Agency applies to open source development groups just as it applies to corporations.
“Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.”
The only consensus mechanism in Bitcoin involves building and disseminating a valid block that others build upon until a depth of 100 blocks has been reached.
Consequently, if your system does not build blocks, it is not a Bitcoin node.
In 2005, MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 US 913 (2005) saw the US Supreme Court decision finding developers are fiduciaries liable for peer-to-peer software.