The problem with the concern is it doesn't actually make any sense. If a court can move coins regardless of the technicals of the given blockchain, which is the observation Wright is making, then it's impossible to conclude that this applies specially to BSV - even supposing BSV miners were to add some software feature that tries to aid courts in doing this.
It's not like the courts turn to BTC and BCH miners and say, "Oh nevermind, we see you don't run software that has a built-in mechanism to facilitate court orders. Nothing we can do. Continue mining as you were."
It's an incoherent claim as it stands; those making it should turn it into something coherent that actually is responsive to what Wright has said if they want an answer.
simple enough. maybe I haven't been clear.
I like to believe that my sentiment towards CSW being Satoshi correlates with worldwide opinion on the matter. I still put it at about 60-70% chance that he is Satoshi and it slowly increases everyday that the claim goes unchallenged by a signed private message from the real Satoshi that "I am not Craig". CSW has become more brazen everyday in claiming that "I am Satoshi and when I created Bitcoin when I wrote the WP", etc. with bsv miners, the sentiment that CSW is Satoshi is probably even higher at maybe 85%, all this without him ever producing a signed message or some semblance of proof he actually owns the private keys. we know with
@shadders it's 100%; and he's CSW's employee. now let's fast forward two years when BSV's price is say $800. also let's assume the facts on the ground don't change one iota. just from time alone, even my confidence about CSW being Satoshi probably ratchets up to 80% and BSV miners up to 95% from the lack of a signed message to the contrary. suddenly, out of nowhere,
@shadders and
@Otaci at the behest of CSW decide to release a hard fork that reallocates ownership of the Satoshi coins to CSW because reasons and "general sentiment that CSW is Satoshi". how do you stop them? gvt won't since they still have no reason to care. many community members won't since the anti digital gold meme is becoming popular amongst big blockists and maybe they just feel he deserves them. and
@shadders and
@Otaci might not since they might stand to benefit. and just the fact that it probably won't work game theory wise wouldn't stop the damage that would occur if this is attempted.
my question on this matter shouldn't be surprising here. this is the GCBU thread that I authored based on my own feelings about sound money and the fact that I do believe that Bitcoin is sound money destined to replace gold and quite possibly the dollar . I believe that money needs to be fungible and the 21M supply sacrosanct. reallocation by law is also problematic as well since, as I said, gvt oftens shoots first and asks questions later. despite this new narrative that Bitcoin's success depends on enterprise adoption and that institutions don't care about sound money and thus we shouldn't too, I reject that idea and goal entirely. maybe they don't care and maybe CSW,
@shadders, and
@Otaci don't care. I do. I think sound money is the main reason for Bitcoin's success to date and at least half the reason for success gong forward.
@shadders tried to strawman me by claiming I was claiming that CSW had to be maliciously plotting a coin grab for 11y; no, he only has to be planning this for 5y or so if he indeed is a fraud. and I've always claimed he could be a fraud as long as he doesn't sign with keys. that's my position.
all I've asked for was for
@shadders and
@Otaci to clarify their positions on coin inflation and whether or not they would support a reallocation of the 1M Satoshi coins to CSW in the absence of him producing the private keys as they are the github key holders and presumably CSW would have to go through them . it's a simple question to my mind with what I thought would have a simple answer. their lack of an answer as employees of CSW tells me they feel a need to keep all options open as one possible motivation. the other is that they truly believe I'm a pest. my counter to that is that I've helped rather dramatically turn this place into a BSV strong hold, helped dramatically in furthering their cause in other forums, have created a platform that I've established since 8/11 and that they are using to influence/monitor opinion, participated in Bitcoin probably longer than either of them, and have never flamed them (in fact the opposite) here or elsewhere. yet I'm called a rando. ok.
