Post

More from @CsTominaga

S Tominaga

@CsTominaga

Oct 20

To claim that the existence of BSV somehow invalidates the case against BTC Core is not only disingenuous but demonstrates a failure to grasp the essence of the matter.

The existence of what BTC Core refer to as competing forks like BSV does not absolve BTC Core from the accusation that they have engaged in passing off. The question is not about popularity, market share, or the existence of another chain—it is about integrity, representation, and the preservation of what Bitcoin was designed to be.

Bitcoin, in its original form, was built on principles that were as clear as they were unchanging. Satoshi Nakamoto’s design promised immutability—a system that would not be altered at the whim of developers or transient technological trends.

Yet, what has occurred under BTC Core is precisely the kind of ideological erosion that Rand warned about in the collectivist degradation of ideals. The alterations to the protocol—such as SegWit and Taproot—have steered BTC away from its original intent, fundamentally changing its very purpose.

To argue that because BSV exists, BTC Core is justified in marketing their version as the original Bitcoin is an exercise in evasion. The heart of a passing off claim is whether the public is being misled into believing that what is being offered is the same product, despite material changes.

In this case, BTC Core’s changes have transformed the system to a degree that it no longer aligns with the design and values Satoshi laid out. The alternative claim that BSV is different, or that it represents a purer version of Bitcoin, does not excuse BTC Core’s responsibility to accurately represent what their version of Bitcoin is. Not even as the original Bitcoin.

Satoshi’s Bitcoin was never about centralized control, nor was it about arbitrary shifts in design. It was about maintaining a decentralized system where individuals could trade value for value without interference, where the protocol was stable, and where traceability ensured integrity. The decisions made by BTC Core to introduce high transaction fees and push for off-chain solutions directly contradict this vision. This is not an evolution, it is a subversion.

One of the greatest dangers in modern intellectual life is the use of language to obscure rather than clarify.

The collectivist mindset that has taken hold within the BTC Core community has twisted the concept of Bitcoin into something it was never meant to be, while still calling it Bitcoin.

Ayn Rand understood the destructive power of such distortions. She recognized that when the meaning of words is warped, the reality they describe is lost. That is precisely what has happened here. BTC Core has altered Bitcoin, but they refuse to alter the name, and in doing so, they have misled the public about what Bitcoin now is.

The idea that the mere existence of BSV negates these facts is absurd. Intellectual property, which Rand so fiercely defended, is about more than just ownership—it is about the integrity of creation.

Bitcoin’s integrity has been undermined by these changes, and the counter argument that BSV adheres more closely to Satoshi’s original design does not excuse the fact that BTC Core is still marketing something fundamentally different as Bitcoin.

If we are to understand what is truly at stake, we must reject this collectivist justification.

The existence of BSV is irrelevant to the question of whether BTC Core has engaged in passing off. The fact remains that they have altered Bitcoin and are presenting an altered product as if it were still the same.

The marketplace, both of ideas and products, depends on clarity, on the honest representation of what is being offered. Anything less is fraud, intellectual dishonesty, and a betrayal of the very principles Bitcoin was built upon.

Rand’s defense of intellectual property was not just about material ownership, it was about protecting the product of the mind from being stolen, diluted, or distorted. What BTC Core has done is to distort Bitcoin to the point where it no longer reflects the values or structure upon which it was built. To suggest that the existence of BSV justifies this distortion is to misunderstand the very nature of integrity itself.

Read 4 tweets

S Tominaga

@CsTominaga

Oct 20

Here's the kicker...

Arguing that BSV (Bitcoin Satoshi Vision) is different from BTC does not provide a valid defense for BTC Core in a passing off case for several key reasons.

To argue that BSV being different somehow justifies BTC Core’s misrepresentation is to engage in a type of intellectual dishonesty that sidesteps the reality of the situation. The issue at hand is not about what other versions of Bitcoin exist, but whether BTC Core is still upholding the principles that were embedded in the original Bitcoin protocol, as conceived by Satoshi Nakamoto. BTC Core's defenders may argue that the mere existence of BSV somehow excuses their actions, but this is a distraction, not a defense.

While I'm not saying that the rules of BSV are different, it isn't a defence for BTC Core to use.

Consider what is fundamentally at stake here: Bitcoin was introduced as a system designed with a specific set of rules—rules meant to be immutable, functioning as the backbone of a system of value for value. Satoshi never intended for Bitcoin to be transformed or diluted by a series of changes driven by the whims of developers who are no longer upholding the objectivist principles of the original protocol. The alterations made by BTC Core—including SegWit, Taproot, and the shift toward high transaction fees—are not mere improvements; they are a departure from the original vision that promised a system capable of small casual transactions and traceable, pseudonymous activity.

The claim that the existence of BSV makes any accusation of passing off invalid is an absurd notion. Passing off is not a matter of popularity or market share; it’s about substance. The issue isn’t which version of Bitcoin is more dominant, but whether BTC Core has altered the essence of what Bitcoin was meant to be while still calling it by the same name. This is akin to someone altering the blueprints of a skyscraper and still calling it the same building, despite changing its structural foundation.

Read 12 tweets

S Tominaga

@CsTominaga

Oct 20

To let you know what I have been doing over the last 6 months where I was quiet...

I have been planning.

In my claim, BTC Core is likely to seek to strike out key components that challenge the integrity and legitimacy of their version of the Bitcoin protocol.

First, they would almost certainly aim to strike out allegations of misrepresentation, particularly those that assert they have fundamentally altered Bitcoin's protocol from what Satoshi Nakamoto originally designed. They would argue that the protocol changes, such as SegWit and Taproot, are improvements rather than deviations, and that these claims lack a legal basis.

BTC Core (B&B) would also attempt to strike out any claims suggesting that they are involved in passing off an altered or inferior product as the original Bitcoin.

Their argument would likely rest on the fact that they control the Bitcoin repository and have continued to present BTC as the true Bitcoin, claiming that these accusations are speculative or unfounded.

Additionally, BTC Core may try to strike out arguments relating to fiduciary duty, particularly any claim that the developers had an obligation to preserve the original protocol as created by Satoshi Nakamoto.

They would likely argue that there is no legal basis for such a fiduciary duty in the context of an open-source software project and that developers have the right to evolve the software as they see fit.

Read 10 tweets

S Tominaga

@CsTominaga

Oct 20

When a partnership is sued, and only one partner steps forward to respond while the others sit back in silence, the situation becomes a textbook case of irresponsibility and lack of foresight.

Partnerships—unless structured as limited liability partnerships (LLPs)—usually operate under joint and several liability. BTC Core is not.

This means every partner is on the hook for the full weight of any legal claims or debts. When some partners don't respond, the court won't chase them down immediately; instead, they’ll direct their focus on the one partner who did show up.

It’s a sad reality that in such cases, justice often takes the path of least resistance.

Now, what happens when the absent partners don’t respond?

The partner left holding the bag faces the brunt of the legal action. They may be hit with the entire judgment amount, regardless of their stake in the partnership or how involved they were in the issue at hand.

This is the very nature of joint liability. Even though all the partners are technically liable, the one person standing in court is the easiest target for the plaintiff. It’s as simple as that—lawsuits, like most things, are often about efficiency, not fairness.

Then there’s the problem of financial capability. If the lone partner who responded can’t handle the financial load of the judgment, the consequences can be devastating.

They could end up losing personal assets, seeing their wages garnished, or watching their bank accounts drained because the legal system has them in its crosshairs.

And just because the other partners are also responsible doesn't mean the court will pursue them right away. In practical terms, this partner faces financial ruin, while the others walk away untouched, at least for now.

Read 6 tweets

S Tominaga

@CsTominaga

Oct 20

One Major aspect of the appeal but I'm running follows based on what you will see below.

Justice Mellor, in his findings, took it upon himself to determine the personality of Satoshi Nakamoto based not on concrete evidence, but rather on his own interpretation of how he believed Satoshi would act.

This raises serious concerns, as such determinations, made without reference to the actual facts, can lead to dangerous precedents.

In his judgement, Justice Mellor refused to engage with the primary sources—he did not read any of the writings of Satoshi, did not examine the original postings of Satoshi, nor did he analyse the original version of Bitcoin. Instead, he chose to craft a fictional personality based on his perceptions promoted by BTC Core from after 2017 rather than the available evidence.

This is akin to intellectual negligence.

How can one form a judgement on an individual without considering the direct words and works of that person?

To determine the intentions and personality of Satoshi Nakamoto without reviewing the foundational documents of Bitcoin—the very framework that this entire debate revolves around—is not only reckless but betrays a fundamental lack of commitment to the truth.

This is the very nature of modern intellectualism, where opinion often overshadows evidence and emotion supplants logic.

One must ask, what kind of justice is this?

To ignore the very words of the person in question, the person whose vision has shaped the Bitcoin system, is to disregard the foundation of truth.

In failing to examine Satoshi’s writings and refusing to consider the technical integrity of Bitcoin, the court has chosen to construct a narrative, one based on assumptions rather than substance.

This is not justice; this is ideology parading as analysis.

Read 4 tweets

S Tominaga

@CsTominaga

Oct 20

While my particulars at 245 may appear to some as a technicality, the distinction between original ownership of database rights and the ongoing derivative rights held by those who continue to invest in the maintenance and development of that database is legally and fundamentally significant.

In the case of Bitcoin, this distinction is not only relevant but intrinsic to its very design.

Bitcoin’s protocol, as set forth by Satoshi Nakamoto (not a part of the case), was deliberately constructed to be set in stone—an immutable system.

Satoshi made a public promise that the core principles of the Bitcoin system would not change.

This promise extends beyond Satoshi as the original creator and binds anyone who interacts with or builds upon the system thereafter. This immutability and the accompanying guarantee of stability was not merely a technical decision; it was a fundamental assurance upon which the entire network of users and developers relied. This promise, made publicly and relied upon by those who engaged with Bitcoin, invokes the principle of promissory estoppel.

In British law, the doctrine of promissory estoppel prevents a party from going back on a promise when the other party has relied upon it to their detriment.

In Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130, Denning J established that if a promise was made, and the other party relied on that promise, the promisor would be estopped from reneging on it, even if no formal contract existed.

In this context, Satoshi Nakamoto’s public declarations about the immutability of the Bitcoin protocol function as a form of unilateral promise, which binds not only Satoshi but also any subsequent parties—such as BTC Core developers—who interact with and continue to develop the system.

Read 9 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

S Tominaga

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @CsTominaga

S Tominaga

S Tominaga

S Tominaga

S Tominaga

S Tominaga

S Tominaga

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!