(1) Thread: Regarding CSW moving forward reclaiming his coi…

(2) So if by chance you bought BSV that originally belonged to CSW, got hacked and then distributed through the exchanges, it could happen that those BSV get returned to CSW, therefore taking away the coins you (thought you) legally bought.

(3) It would mean that you then have to sue an Exchange for selling you a coin that they weren't sure of whom it belonged to.

This leads to 3 more or less feasible scenarios:

(4) a) You are too poor to actually finance and follow through with a lawsuit vs. a global firm such as these exchanges.

b) In case of a class action lawsuit, it can still happen that the defendant cannot stay solvent and pay all damages.

(5) c) You get your damages back.

So it is possible that some small fish investors (you & I) have to pay the bill in the end when coins get redistributed.

(6) I understand that we have legal systems in place to make sure that doesn't happen, but reality has shown numerous times that the justice system only works in your favor if you have enough money & contacts to tilt it in your favor.

(7) Therefore I ask the question: How can Bitcoin, a coin within the law, work if the law is not adjudicated properly?

are you familiar with the concept of fungibility?

if I rob your cash and go to the mini mart, the mart owner is not at fault for taking the cash innocently. the value of the damages is against the theif.

Ok, so the thief gets caught, has already spent all the money, goes to jail, and the coins I thought I owned get returned to CSW. The outcome is the same, I lost my coins while thinking I had legally bought them.

actually no, the coins you own under a legitimate pretense dont get removed from your possession.

The united states dollar value or pounds value is owed by the theif, their ability to repay with bitcoin irrelevant

I see. That does make me less worried.

"As set out in the Letters before Action issued today, TTL is requesting that the developers enable TTL to regain access to and control of its Bitcoin ..."

This is what CSWs law firm writes. So how do they determine which coins come back to him?

dont overthink it. nothing will happen.

I dont know man and the track record of csw in court has not been great, and every case some asshole on coingeek calls it a 'landmark case'.

fuck this shit tbh

woke up balls deep in bsv

except the thief is unknown, devs are being sued.

Clarification: I just searched a bit, and it seems that you are wrong. It does not matter under what circumstances you bought a good. If it was stolen beforehand, you do not own it. Therefore it can and probably will be returned to the owner.

rightful owners of btc would need to show ownership of assets, and the address(s) pointed to by ontier would be up for claims because the thief cant come forward (am i getting this right?)

csw claims hinge upon fungibility afaik, if bitcoin isnt recognized as fungible then yes problem

The whole court case is based on restoring the ownership back to the original owner. That's the whole "gold to lead, and back to gold" idea of stolen Bitcoin. The problem is that the weakest link in the chain will have to book the losses for the theft.

cant see that occuring

not in the case of currency.
search for precedent: Banknotes and Their Vindication in Eighteenth-Century Scotland

do you understand how UTXOs would be reassigned?

yes. in BSV the chain will be amended in a recent block

in BCH and BTC the UTXO will not be reassigned.

A cynic might argue that this was CSW's plan all along. He will not get any BTC or BCH coins, but he'll get the BSV coins for sure, then dump them all & screw BSVers.

I'm not saying CSW is not Satoshi, but if he isn't, we were the mark (in a long-con).

yes this is already the popular narrative.

whether or not BSV was the intended group of marks, BSV gets fucked by this in the public sphere

What I think about 'csw is satoshi' is that the claim has a low dollar value and getting lower.

sure, csw is satoshi, satoshi is a guy who cherishes holding btc, he has a side project for micropayments but its not the same as BTC not anywhere close.

He pretends to be religiously aware and objectionable about some narratives while oblivious to other obvious more damaging ones.
I am not dumb to his game.
I must to conclude he is an unfriendly force, perhaps a foe, to be guarded of

well i certainly always thought that bsv would have to stand on its own satoshi or not. indeed, assuming not, but also not expecting perceived sabotage.

also that BTC does not stand on its own long term.

so here we are.

it is this amended in a recent block that i want to probe. does it require a HF?

the big trick to btc that noone saw coming was how one does not need to touch btc to invest in it, and that that would be the primary means of participating in btc.

btc isnt even standing, it will be carried, long term, in third party databases

perhaps this could happen, but it's nowhere near certain. i give greater odds to its eventual collapse. in any case one can be forgiven for not investing in a hobbled tech that is only sustained by perception.

well, all forks are hard in time and the result of a node seeing an invalid transaction or block is a rejection of said block

invalid txns i can see. but i don't get how you append the blockchain to reassign privkeys.

you make a whole new private key , which is pointed to/registered in the amendment

imagine the bluntest of hacks, breaking the chain of digital signatures and all that.

what zarathustra points out makes more sense.
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1652#post-115997