[HN Gopher] Of regrets ___________________________________________________________________ Of regrets Author : nullc Score : 44 points Date : 2023-02-06 21:33 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (laanwj.github.io) (TXT) w3m dump (laanwj.github.io) | nullc wrote: | A con artist has filed multiple lawsuits in the UK against the | current and former (increasingly, as more quit) developers of | Bitcoin demanding billions of dollars, part in retaliation for | their failure to back up his obviously false claims of being | Bitcoin's creator and in part as part of an insane plot to steal | billions of dollars in Bitcoin. Unfortunately, his efforts are | financed by at least one (and possibly multiple) persons with far | more wealth than morals who have been promised a share of the | spoils. | | The poster of the linked article, Wladimir Van der Laan, was one | of the most active developers of Bitcoin since 2011. I'm also | another early bitcoin developer, now former, and another one of | this conman's legal attack targets. | | A key point about vexatious litigation, especially in places like | the UK which lack protections against SLAPPs, is that the | attacker doesn't need to win the lawsuit to achieve his goals: He | can cause his victims millions of dollars in legal costs, | phenomenal impositions on their time and privacy, and great | psychological stress-- losing nothing himself but what he paid | for his attorneys. Winning or not is more or less incidental, as | the culprit here said quite explicitly online before commencing | his lawsuits (saying that the intent was to destroy his targets | and their families financially and psychologically). That fact | that none of us were in the UK or had any dealings in the UK | doesn't matter because open source software is available | everywhere. | | For that reason its important that it be possible to discharge | frivolous litigation as quickly and efficiently as possible. As | open source developers the cost/benefit of publishing our work | can be pretty dicey to begin with, so it's important that the | licenses we use not gratuitously open up avenues for litigation | from the users since there are no revenues to pay for such things | as a cost of doing business. | | In his first lawsuit, he alleged to own billions of dollars in | Bitcoin (coins which are already well known to have belonged to | the MTGox exchange) and that in 2020-- coincidentally just as his | obligations to repay his lenders were coming due-- thieves | entered into his home to install a "wifi pineapple" to hack his | computers and steal the keys and that when he discovered this | "hack" he wipes his computers to clear the compromise, | conveniently making sure there would be no evidence of the "hack" | or ever owning the coins to begin with. The coins in question | have not moved. He then filed a lawsuit against a dozen former | and current developers arguing that as developers they have a | fiduciary responsibility to introduce a backdoor into the bitcoin | cryptosystem to "recover" "his" coins. In three years there has | been no comment or apparent action by the police over this theft | which, if it were real, would likely be the highest value heist | in recorded history. | | The case seemed obviously baseless to us, owing to obvious | falsehood of his claims, the impossibility of his request (people | would not adopt this backdoored version, even if anyone was | willing to make themself complicit in his attempted theft by | writing it for him), the pointlessness of it (he just pay someone | to write it (or do it himself, if he could program) and half the | defendants had long since stopped working on Bitcoin), the fact | that even the police don't have a positive duty to save anyone | from harm, and the unambiguous disclaimer of liabilities in our | software license -- without which we never would have published | it in the first place. | | And keep in mind that he's already been found by judges in | several countries to have perjured himself, submitted faked | evidence, etc. in other cases (as shown in this collage of | rulings against Wright, | https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FoMUonbXkAEbJbL?format=jpg&name=... ) | | The trial court agreed ( | https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2022/667.html ), ruling | that his case didn't have more than a fanciful chance of success. | But he appealed and the decision was reversed ( | https://nt4tn.net/scammer-craig-wright/Tulip_v_Van_Der_Laan_... | ). He's now gloating on slack and twitter that he's already "won" | because we'll be 'ruined' by having to pay the 7-figure cost of | his successful appeal and by publishing whatever dirt he can | extract from our private data obtained in discovery. | | (The second lawsuit, which has yet to come before a court alleges | that the targets are violating "his" copyright by distributing | the Bitcoin "block format" and bitcoin documentation, nevermind | the fact that Bitcoin has been released under the MIT expat | license since day one, and that this bozo's claims of being | Bitcoin's creator are totally discredited and obviously false. | He's also filed additional lawsuits against community members and | journalists for expressing the view that his claims of having | created Bitcoin are false). | | Regardless of what you think about Bitcoin, the enforceability of | the disclaimer of liability is critical to all of open source and | the court's unwillingness to summarily dismiss an effort to | compel the authorship and publication of a backdoor in a | cryptographic security scheme from a supposed user who hopes to | benefit from the backdoor should be a concern to all open source | developers. | anewhnaccount2 wrote: | How are they going to seek the damages given the defendants | probably don't own any property in the UK? | aliqot wrote: | Is there an organization covering the legal defense fund of | these devs, or a crowdfund effort that you know of? Supporters | of cryptoassets or not, I think we can all identify with this | being a big problem that can bite us, as developers of free | software, in other ways if we don't make a stand here with a | case as visible as this. This is a dangerous precedent. | rjbwork wrote: | This is insane. The UK seems completely unequipped for a bad | faith actor of this magnitude. I'm a huge cryptoskeptic, but | what this guy is doing is straight up _evil_. I hope you and | everyone else come out relatively unscathed, and I 'm sorry | you've got to deal with this loon. | kanzure wrote: | Maybe it is time to enshrine open-source software development | into law, and out of the realm of merely relying on an old | copyright hack. It was a very clever hack, of course, but maybe | the software industry has outgrown it and needs more legal basis | to rely on. | jrm4 wrote: | If only there were a different license that kind of predicted | all of this and governed itself accordingly? At least some kind | of much better starting point from which to begin these things? | If only someone had thought of that? | | In all seriousness, it appears as if I'm the first to mention | the GPL in this thread and I find that very odd. There's your | _starting_ point. | epicureanideal wrote: | How do we accomplish that without an army of lobbyists? | ForHackernews wrote: | Hold the entire world's technology industry hostage. | | Nice multi-billion dollar business you got there, be a real | shame if somebody started introducing subtly-breaking bugs | into that critical library you use, wouldn't it? | kanzure wrote: | Well, extortion and blackmail isn't exactly a way of | further legitimizing open-source software development. | ForHackernews wrote: | Works for the copyright industry, doesn't it? | kanzure wrote: | Major corporations have entire strategies built around open- | source, with many household names that you know (Facebook, | Microsoft, Google, ...). According to random estimates on the | internet, open-source software is a $50 billion annual | market. There's enough "there" there to get you something. | nhchris wrote: | Can somebody elaborate? The article claims the MIT license's no- | warranty clause has been voided in the UK, but provides no | details or a source. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-02-06 23:00 UTC)