ON THE TRANSACTIONLESS MINER: Dunno who needs to hear this…

Who is the issuer for commodities such as gold, oil or uranium ?
Who is the governing body which controls international disputes over these commodities ?


digital commodities act very differently on these points, so comparison is not that useful.

Craig has not convinced a court yet that he can enforce copyright claims, and at least 4 different people have been granted a copyright of bitcoin's WP, but I would be glad to see him do that. Until then, neither he nor the BA can force miners.

I think most people are fine with saying that the miner's actions are malicious - but that's not the issue, the issue is who gets to dictate the minimum price of transaction or size of blocks. I agree with you that only miners get to decide for now by orphaning the blocks - and it can be acted without waiting, contrary to the long time that it would take to try to use the law to solve this.

Good question. Typically it's been exchanges who create the commodity and the market for it.

West Texas Intermediate Light Sweet Crude, the NYMEX (now ICE), for example.

"one of the world's most liquid oil commodities in an electronic marketplace. The contract…"

Notice the word CONTRACT, as in legally binding contract.

See some of the rules:
https://www.theice.com/products/213/WTI-Crude-Futuresem

Now, imagine a trading entity or supplier who tries to game the system by delivering oil which doesn't meet the specifications due to some wrinkle. What do you think ICE would do when a buyer of WTI doesn't get delivery of actual oil?

If an entity promises fair delivery of a commodity, but then rug-pulls, it CAN be prosecuted criminally. Perhaps the entity could win that lawsuit, but from the evidence provided so far, it's unlikely in this case as the miner has done other shady stuff not exactly screaming "honesty".

But you're right, the other miners, even with less than 1% hashpower, can simply orphan the majority-hash entity. And will.

The father of BitCoin has already warned everyone of this, but almost no one bothered to understand it. Time for everyone to read up on "Stackelberg Games". The "leader" doesn't at always win, and that's definitely already proven true MANY times in the history of BitCoin but in other areas as well; or, at least (in bitcoin) if you believe the version of the future where btc & bch will go to zero bc it's not backed by anything, and real bitcoin will overtake it, as I am certain.

You're also correct that Craig/BA hasn't yet won in court, but they don't need to win in court for BSV in particular as no one is challenging that. For more general bitcoin, no other parties have shown any teeth except Craig. Law requires action, not idle filings with the Copyright Office. Craig has done so; none of the others has done anything to assert their claims.

Again, as usual, CSW is correct to use the law to assert his claims. You may think he'll lose, but he's the only one actually doing anything, and that will likely count as far as I can predict.

If the world deems BitCoin not a commodity, which to me would be as absurd as declaring that electricity or cloud computing are bad, then I guess anything can happen. But if "anything happens", then congrats to all the anarchy fans, and good luck holding onto your houses, cars, wives, daughters. Unliked CSW, I believe anarchy exists, but it's quite ugly and not a place an industrious person would want to live. But if you're really good at "warlording"….

SLictionary.com/CreateWord/WARLORDING/@/@/

there's a place between anarchy and the government dealing with all issues, where the private market can handle most of the contentious situations - actually that's already pretty much the case, the issue being that court process is too expensive, and the private sector too. but there is a lot of progress possible on that side (enforcing property rights for cheaper prices) and I see the success of bitcoin as a step in that direction, not that bitcoin enforces property rights fully without law, but that it naturally works better without the need to resort to law, so for most situations it is much better - and law will always remain as the fallback for cases where technology reaches its limits, which it will always have.

Craig has definitely shown more teeth than probably anyone - but if the courts don't believe him, and his character is not exactly one that is easy to believe given that his mind works differently than most - then it can also, and to this day has, have a negative impact even on those that would benefit from adopting scaled Bitcoin. I now believe the only way we will convince them and succeed is first by economics - and law only later. And it can even be said than once the economic war has been won, we will not care as much about the law wars.

No doubt, but for some reason in code-land people think they can do whatever the code allows.

Perfect example: There's been exploitable bugs in my code in the past, which sometimes is left to fester on purpose as a honey pot to see if bad actors are out and active. Just about EVERY time, good people have told us of the bugs or hacks. This is what's expected— of decent people anyway— the majority.

Again, imagine a bad actor screwing buyers in the oil markets. This would last about 2 seconds before the exchange shut itself down. Why should it be any different in a distributed system? The bad actor would be brought up on theft charges if he didn't admit or explain the error.

The current "miner" isn't talking to anyone or responding to requests, and just being a dick in general. So the law is an excellent solution in this case. YET, people in BSV will complain about it, as if the bitcoin network or Craig is at fault for rooting-out crooks. STRANGE.

People need to start realizing, before web3 happens, that the cyber/internet world isn't some magical place where you can do crime because anonymous and because the code allows it. Even in cryptocurrency world, this isn't happening, even from the beginning days. Does anyone seriously think that if the Mt Gox hacker was revealed (likely an inside job) that he wouldn't be prosecuted in Japan or any other half-decent country? People are responsible for their actions whether live or Memorex.

Also remember, IMPORTANT: EVERY court case begins with the would-be-plaintiff writing to the defendant for mediation, explanation, cease/desist, and remedial actions (paying back coifed funds, for inst.). This part of the process, in Christianity is called "forgiveness" which must be asked or it isn't granted. It's the same in law. The lawsuit isn't even accepted until this process occurs. In Wright vs Granath, Wright had to send remedial actions to Granath FIRST.
The miner clowns aren't asking for forgiveness or admitting…

Fully agree with you on this. The only thing I want to insist on is that the law process is very slow - as it should be. And that's why honest miners have a role to play if the situation gets worse, they have the responsability of orphaning bad blocks that prevent the chain from being used. I even proposed a starting point to doing that. What I like about bitcoin is precisely that code is not law, but that the incentive of honest miners cooperating and competing at the same time to create value for themselves and the network can allow us the network to be resilient faster than the time it takes the law to catch up
https://twetch.com/t/9b7771cdbc19e9c16f0944407d3949248a04ae36915048149a91ca93dd585151

How’s your ability to read & write C++?

I actually learned programming as a kid with C and then C++, but last time I used them was around 5 years ago