Thread by @CsTominaga

All those who supprt and extending the original version of Bitcoin own database rights.

The original miners in Bitcoin hold database rights because they directly contributed to the creation and extension of the Bitcoin blockchain.

To understand this, we need to break down how UK law handles database rights and how those miners fit into it.

In the UK, database rights come from the Database Directive, which was adopted into UK law through the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997. These laws protect the people who invest significant time, money, or effort into creating or maintaining a database.

A database, legally speaking, is any organised collection of data that can be accessed and managed. The Bitcoin blockchain, as a digital ledger storing transaction records, falls within this definition.

Now, what does this have to do with miners?

The early Bitcoin miners, those who ran full nodes and created blocks, didn’t just participate in the system by pressing a button.

Being a miner foes not make you Satoshi. But, these entities were integral to expanding the blockchain, adding new blocks to the database, verifying transactions, and ensuring everything followed the original rules laid out in Satoshi Nakamoto’s protocol. In legal terms, these miners were not merely observers; they were active participants who made substantial contributions to maintaining and growing the database.

The law on database rights protects those who invest in the creation or management of a database.

In Bitcoin, it wasn’t Satoshi alone who created the database.

The miners who followed the original protocol by contributing blocks before the network scaled and changed in structure also invested significantly in the system’s success. Their investment wasn’t just financial—it was also technical and computational, as they kept the system running and secure.

Take the case of British Horseracing Board v William Hill (2004), where the Court ruled that people who invest resources in compiling or maintaining a database have a right to control how that database is used. The early Bitcoin miners were doing exactly this: they were helping to compile and maintain the blockchain, adding new blocks and verifying transactions.

Without them, the Bitcoin blockchain would not have been able to grow or continue functioning. This same principle applies here—they should hold rights over the database they helped create.

In legal terms, this concept is backed by something called “sui generis” database rights. This special type of right was designed to protect those who make substantial investments in obtaining, verifying, or presenting data, which fits exactly with what these miners did.

Each time they added a new block to the Bitcoin blockchain, they weren’t just running hardware; they were verifying and presenting new data, ensuring the blockchain stayed secure and consistent with Satoshi’s original vision.

It’s also important to note that not everyone involved in Bitcoin at that time qualifies for these database rights. People who simply provided hashing power to mining pools but didn’t create blocks or run nodes weren’t making the same kind of direct investment in the database itself.

Under English law, only those who actively created blocks and participated in the verification of transactions can claim these rights, because they were the ones contributing to the creation and maintenance of the blockchain as a database.

No full nodes sorry.

A key case to reference is Football Dataco v Sportradar (2013), where the Court reaffirmed that database rights extend to those who systematically verify and present data.

This is exactly what the original miners were doing—they were following the systematic process outlined in Satoshi Nakamoto’s White Paper, adding verified transactions to the blockchain. By doing so, they were expanding the database and making it more valuable.

In summary, under UK law, the original miners who created blocks in the early Bitcoin network have database rights because they invested significant effort in building and maintaining the blockchain.

They were not passive participants; they were essential to the system’s growth and integrity. By following the original protocol and contributing blocks, they helped shape the Bitcoin blockchain into what it became. This is why they have legitimate rights to the database, not just Satoshi Nakamoto alone.

The law recognises that those who make significant contributions to a database deserve legal protection for their investment, and this applies directly to the miners who played an active role in Bitcoin’s early development.

While the original miners hold database rights due to their investment in the system, these rights are not absolute.

Unlike Satoshi, who created the initial system and established its framework, the miners’ rights are conditional and based on the terms laid out in the original protocol.

Miners have the right to continue within the system, but this right is contingent upon their adherence to the original rules.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel provides a critical lens through which we can understand the relationship between Satoshi, the miners, and the immutability of the protocol.

Promissory estoppel, a principle in English contract law, arises when a party makes a promise upon which others rely, and it would be inequitable to allow the promisor to later go back on that promise. In this case, Satoshi Nakamoto’s declaration that “Bitcoin is set in stone” can be seen as a binding promise.

This statement sets a clear expectation: the protocol should remain fixed, and those participating in the system have a reasonable right to expect that the rules will not change.

The promise of immutability means that miners and other participants are not simply bound by their contributions but have the right to rely on the fact that the system will remain stable, and they can defend its original structure against any proposed changes.

The concept of promissory estoppel was developed in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130, where it was ruled that a promisor cannot go back on a promise if the other party has relied on it to their detriment.

Here, Satoshi’s statement regarding Bitcoin being “set in stone” functions as such a promise.

The miners, in relying on this assurance, have continued to build the system and extend the database. Any attempt by Satoshi or others to alter the core rules of Bitcoin would be subject to estoppel, as miners have invested time, effort, and resources based on the belief that the protocol will not change.

It’s important to note that this reliance is not blind loyalty, but a legal safeguard that ensures those upholding the original protocol are protected.

The miners’ database rights, therefore, include the right to insist that the system remains true to its original design. As long as they adhere to the protocol, they have a vested right to continue extending the database, secure in the knowledge that the foundational rules cannot be arbitrarily altered.

Furthermore, the miners are not just passive beneficiaries of this promise. They are active stewards of the system, bound by the same estoppel as Satoshi. In Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co [1877] 2 App Cas 439, the principle was further solidified that when a party behaves in a way that leads another to act in reliance on their conduct, they cannot later go back on that implied promise.

This applies to anyone who takes up the mantle of maintaining the system. Whether it’s Satoshi or another participant, those who engage in the maintenance of the blockchain are legally bound to uphold the original rules, ensuring that no unilateral changes can occur.

In other words, those who now participate in Bitcoin are held to the original agreement that the system should not be modified. The miners’ right to defend the protocol is legally enforceable, and any attempt to alter the database or change the protocol would not only breach the principle of immutability but also infringe upon the legal rights of those upholding the system. This right to resist changes is not just a moral stance; it’s a legally defensible position under promissory estoppel.

Satoshi, or any other party, cannot alter the protocol because miners and other participants have relied on the promise of a fixed system, building and extending the database on that understanding.

While Satoshi may have initiated the system and thus holds foundational rights to the original database, the miners’ rights are derived from their adherence to the original protocol and the promise of immutability.

Promissory estoppel binds all parties to uphold the system as it was originally designed, giving miners the right not only to continue but also to protect the database from changes.

The system’s fixed nature, as promised by Satoshi, means that any effort to change the protocol would not only violate the promise but infringe upon the legal rights of those who have contributed to and maintained the blockchain under those original terms.

This statement in my PoC does not say that I claimed to have created the entire database.

Instead, it emphasises my role in maintaining and extending it.

I developed software through my companies and actively mined Bitcoin.

My tax returns provide clear evidence of this work. The database rights, therefore, do not apply solely to me; they apply to every miner who contributed to building and maintaining the blockchain.

The law recognises the efforts of all those involved in the development, maintenance, and extension of the database, ensuring that every miner who followed the original protocol and created blocks holds rights to the system.

I am claiming this right not as Satoshi, but as someone who invested significantly in the system.

This is fundamentally different from an identity claim. It is a legal position based on my contributions to the development, maintenance, and extension of the Bitcoin blockchain. This ties directly into the champagne case, where every miner, every person who developed the original Bitcoin code and adhered to the original protocol, has the right to enforce and protect it. It is not about who someone is, but what they have invested and contributed to the system’s growth and integrity.

This right extends to all those who maintained the original vision and protocol of Bitcoin.

This is an ownership in common.

These rights are founded on the initial promissory estoppel created by Satoshi Nakamoto, who made a clear and binding promise when he stated that the protocol was "set in stone."

This statement established a framework where those who invested in and adhered to the original system could rely on the immutability of the protocol. In legal terms, Satoshi’s offer of the system came with implicit contractual terms. By creating Bitcoin and inviting participants to join under these set rules, Satoshi effectively entered into a contract with the network’s users.

Every miner and developer who contributed based on this understanding did so with the reasonable expectation that the protocol would not change. These rights, therefore, stem not from identity, but from the enforceable contractual terms that Satoshi established, ensuring that those who upheld the original system have the legal right to continue doing so and to protect the protocol from being altered.

The typo must have been ChatGPT - It needs to stop these errors...