Fact correction

Posted Feb 11, 2023 18:41 UTC (Sat) by jejb (subscriber, #6654)
In reply to: Fact correction by garloff
Parent article: Free software and fiduciary duty

> I am reading though that the plaintiff has sued developers, not the operators of the network.

Yes but the plaintiff is specifically alleging that because of the distributed nature of the miner network on bitcoin, controlling the official release of code (the Github account) also makes them (really maintainers not general developers) the real controllers of the bitcoin network.

Fact correction

Posted Feb 11, 2023 21:03 UTC (Sat) by garloff (subscriber, #319) [Link] (1 responses)

It is the *choice* of the network operators. Thanks to open source, a choice with many options.

Fact correction

Posted Feb 11, 2023 22:35 UTC (Sat) by jejb (subscriber, #6654) [Link]

> It is the *choice* of the network operators. Thanks to open source, a choice with many options.

Well the maintainers argued something similar (they argued putting a patch in to favour tulip would lead to a fork of the repo).

The appeal court ruled that this point was a dispute of fact that must be decided at trial, but if the decision went Tulip's way they had a reasonable probability of proving the maintainers had fiduciary liability for the bitcoin network.