Recently, Craig Wright has sued almost every developer of B…

Recently, Craig Wright has sued almost every developer of BTC Core on partnership issues.

This case is entirely different from the other case he had been involved in. The previous case that he was involved in was specifically on proving the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto.

What makes this case different then?

In this particular case, he represented himself as an individual, just like you and me. A normal user who just sees injustice in the Blockchain space.

With that being said, why partnership law?

The whole drama started after the blocksize war in the Bitcoin community.

There's a group of people (BTC) who fight for its control of Bitcoin in the name of community.

On the other hand, we have another group of people (BSV) who fought for the original design of Bitcoin aligned with the whitepaper.

In my attempts to be nonpolitical, who's right or wrong?

The BSV people seem to align with what Satoshi Nakamoto envisioned it to be but fell into the whirlpool of who's Satoshi Nakamoto, at least in the past.

While BTC and almost all of the cryptocurrency community believed that decentralisation means community consensus and that the future of a network is governed by a group of entities who had more voting power.

Once again, who's right and who's wrong?

That brings us to the partnership lawsuit filed by Craig Wright.

Why should it matter to you and everybody else?

If some of you are familiar with the cryptocurrency space, you might have already seen some of the lawsuits that are similar to what Craig Wright pursued...

The SEC and XRP court case regarding the breaching of securities law.

Here's my take on the matter.

Although, the XRP court case delved into whether pre-mining had breached securities law.

I feel the case of the partnership law filled by Craig Wright goes even deeper than what we collectively had thought of.

Think about it...
The case is akin to the relation of the Howey Test in terms of securities law, that as long as there's a group of developers who control a network protocol, they might be subjected to the Howey Test.

The criteria of a Howey Test are as follows:
Investment of money: The transaction involves an investment of money.

Expectation of profits: The investor expects to profit from the investment.

Common enterprise: The investment is part of a common enterprise.

Reliance on the efforts of others: The investor relies on the efforts of a third party for the investment's success.

Judging by the text of it (I'm not a lawyer, just a curious person who seeks an answer), there's a high chance that BTC Core might've breached the Howey Test, just like how Craig Wright sues them for... Partnerships. Why is that so?

It's a common understanding outside of the BTC maxis that the entire protocol is controlled by a few developers.

So, realistically speaking, is it true that there's a common interest in the BTC network to remain profitable?

Anybody who funded the BTC Core developers can be subjected to common enterprise etc.
They almost fulfilled the criteria of the Howey Test!

Why didn't Amazon get sued for partnership law with the... Internet? Because the internet is purely decentralised! Amazon does not have a common interest like money investment in maintaining the internet.

If Bitcoin is designed to fit the narrative of digital gold, it should be unchangeable by any entity, just like a commodity...not even Satoshi Nakamoto or a group. Therefore, the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is completely irrelevant in the first place.

The internet does not owe us anything, nor do we constantly operate under protocol changes. As long as we build on top of the Internet according to the protocol and standards, we're fine.

But the BTC we called it today seems to not operate under a similar pattern as the internet. There are changes within the community that might have or might not favoured the developers. I feel we shouldn't be political and debate which decisions are beneficial for which parties but operate on the same rules. That's how we ensure true competition does exist.
After all, a protocol set in stone is one that truly does not discriminate.

It's like a sport changing rules just to cater to a losing team, or a sport changing rules to favour the winning team even more.
Both arguments are irrelevant!
The sport has the same rules for every player, and whether some players are more dominating is irrelevant in the context of decentralisation...

Just a thought experiment to relate with Bitcoin.

For Bitcoin to stand the test of time, we are required to operate just like the Internet. Completely decentralised. Everybody is independent, has a fixed protocol, is free to build on, etc.

Did the whole cryptocurrency space being misled by the myth of decentralisation?

If the case is relevant, the whole blockchain space will undergo a rough awakening.

What are your thoughts?