230 of which countries articular which law?
Protection For 'Good Samaritan' Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material
I am presuming at the moment you're talking about the Communications act 1934 telecommunications act amended 1996
USC forty-seven S 230?
if so, it is not abusing the rule of law it is the rule of law
Do I agree with the law, no but that's a different issue
now it is a stupid rather asinine law that protects the wrong people and provides negative outcomes but, it is a law and it is being applied
people should stand up against it was is rather stupid and an asinine law but that's a different matter and I am not American
It was a poorly drafted law
CSW
May 18, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1621361792014900?thread_ts=1621361792.014900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2370
Protection For 'Good Samaritan' Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material
I am presuming at the moment you're talking about the Communications act 1934 telecommunications act amended 1996
USC forty-seven S 230?
if so, it is not abusing the rule of law it is the rule of law
Do I agree with the law, no but that's a different issue
now it is a stupid rather asinine law that protects the wrong people and provides negative outcomes but, it is a law and it is being applied
people should stand up against it was is rather stupid and an asinine law but that's a different matter and I am not American
It was a poorly drafted law
CSW
May 18, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1621361792014900?thread_ts=1621361792.014900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2370
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
May 18, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1621361792014900?thread_ts=1621361792.014900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2370
May 18, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1621361792014900?thread_ts=1621361792.014900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2370
1/3
If you buy a car from a thief you do not have title
You have an action against the thief to recover your money.
Negotiability requires mercantile trade. In the current bitcoin environment, will mercantile trade is being conducted. In specie transfers of notes and coins do not automatically come under negotiability. Unless you are using bitcoin as money, it is not legally money.
Bitcoin as a commodity investment is property. When you buy and sell bitcoin on an exchange for the purposes of use on the exchange and little more, it does not come under the legal protections of money. When you buy foreign currency contracts for investment, the same applies.
Importantly, if you buy a stolen car you can be liable as well as the thief. Cars come under registration requirements. Bitcoin comes under registration requirements over certain amounts. Where there is a requirement for the transfer to be registered the receipt of goods without the required transfer documents leaves you liable as well. Effectively, you should have known that there could be a problem.
When you buy a car from a thief, the thief will have the registration details or the thief is clearly engaging in something a little fishy.
With regards to bitcoin, it depends on where you get it and how much you have obtained. You need to treat each individual UTXO as a separate envelope. Not the address, the UTXO. If the UTXO holds more than the required amount for money-laundering provisions to apply, you will need to follow those provisions. As such, half a BTC is all you need in a single UTXO to now require the use of money-laundering provisions and the exchange of identity.
When you're exchanging one BSV at present rates, this will not apply. If you are exchanging one BSV for a restaurant meal, that would be a monetary transaction and negotiability apply. If you did not know that the particular tokens had been stolen or otherwise frozen, you could argue goods and services in exchange for valid consideration and be covered.
The publication of an address so that people would know about its theft removes negotiability. It is a property exchange and the tokens can be recovered. The alert key simplified this process. All users would have known of stolen bitcoin.
In the case of the car, it does not matter that you did not know it was stolen or not. Vehicles have a requirement to be registered. If you do not check the registration and go through the correct process, you have not done the required steps and thus you are still just as liable.
You're forgetting that you have a positive step to complete when you buy a car. In fact, there are steps to do with all sorts of monetary transactions. If you are dealing with large transactions or even continuous cash transactions that exceed £5000 per annum in the UK you are required to go through know your customer regulations.
Even if the car is a Junker worth £200, the requirement for registration precludes an argument that you did not know.
When you buy a car you have requirements that need to be addressed. The thief cannot have a saleable possession without registration. The simple answer here is check the registration.
It's your fault when you don't check the registration. If a corporate register lists the thief as an owner, you have some redress. But if you buy a car and don't check on file registration, you haven't really bought a car.
So yes, if the buyer is stupid enough to give money to someone without any indication of ownership, without registration, without the legally mandated requirements for the sale, there is no sale.
If I point at the Brooklyn Bridge and say would you like to buy it, do you think paying the conman gives you title? Do you think you have a claim against New York City for your loss?
CSW
Jun 30, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1593511066170500?thread_ts=1593503658.165900&cid=C5131HKFX
1/3
https://www.tgoop.com/c/1359633424/32
If you buy a car from a thief you do not have title
You have an action against the thief to recover your money.
Negotiability requires mercantile trade. In the current bitcoin environment, will mercantile trade is being conducted. In specie transfers of notes and coins do not automatically come under negotiability. Unless you are using bitcoin as money, it is not legally money.
Bitcoin as a commodity investment is property. When you buy and sell bitcoin on an exchange for the purposes of use on the exchange and little more, it does not come under the legal protections of money. When you buy foreign currency contracts for investment, the same applies.
Importantly, if you buy a stolen car you can be liable as well as the thief. Cars come under registration requirements. Bitcoin comes under registration requirements over certain amounts. Where there is a requirement for the transfer to be registered the receipt of goods without the required transfer documents leaves you liable as well. Effectively, you should have known that there could be a problem.
When you buy a car from a thief, the thief will have the registration details or the thief is clearly engaging in something a little fishy.
With regards to bitcoin, it depends on where you get it and how much you have obtained. You need to treat each individual UTXO as a separate envelope. Not the address, the UTXO. If the UTXO holds more than the required amount for money-laundering provisions to apply, you will need to follow those provisions. As such, half a BTC is all you need in a single UTXO to now require the use of money-laundering provisions and the exchange of identity.
When you're exchanging one BSV at present rates, this will not apply. If you are exchanging one BSV for a restaurant meal, that would be a monetary transaction and negotiability apply. If you did not know that the particular tokens had been stolen or otherwise frozen, you could argue goods and services in exchange for valid consideration and be covered.
The publication of an address so that people would know about its theft removes negotiability. It is a property exchange and the tokens can be recovered. The alert key simplified this process. All users would have known of stolen bitcoin.
In the case of the car, it does not matter that you did not know it was stolen or not. Vehicles have a requirement to be registered. If you do not check the registration and go through the correct process, you have not done the required steps and thus you are still just as liable.
You're forgetting that you have a positive step to complete when you buy a car. In fact, there are steps to do with all sorts of monetary transactions. If you are dealing with large transactions or even continuous cash transactions that exceed £5000 per annum in the UK you are required to go through know your customer regulations.
Even if the car is a Junker worth £200, the requirement for registration precludes an argument that you did not know.
When you buy a car you have requirements that need to be addressed. The thief cannot have a saleable possession without registration. The simple answer here is check the registration.
It's your fault when you don't check the registration. If a corporate register lists the thief as an owner, you have some redress. But if you buy a car and don't check on file registration, you haven't really bought a car.
So yes, if the buyer is stupid enough to give money to someone without any indication of ownership, without registration, without the legally mandated requirements for the sale, there is no sale.
If I point at the Brooklyn Bridge and say would you like to buy it, do you think paying the conman gives you title? Do you think you have a claim against New York City for your loss?
CSW
Jun 30, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1593511066170500?thread_ts=1593503658.165900&cid=C5131HKFX
1/3
https://www.tgoop.com/c/1359633424/32
More, the non-KYC miners will face legal challenges
Not at 50%, but a 10% KYC miner will have legal redress against other nodes who orphan their blocks.
I really don’t think people are thought this through. A miner with 10% of the total hash rate manages to set up a node and then starts filtering addresses that are under a KYC/AML ban and then other miners decide to orphan blocks that this miner is now creating.
Think about the outcome here. The argument is that you should be able to enable and facilitate crime without consequence. The node who is following the law will be the one that the court supports. So, if the node decides to take action for all of the lost blocks, not only will they gain compensation for any block that is orphaned but also the cost of taking and executing the enforcement action.
Think about the rational outcome to such a strategy. A miner who does not follow AML will end up with court orders against them and eventually have their assets seized. For every block that they allow, they create a competitive advantage that will help grow the smaller miners who are compliant.
The node operators will think about this. A node with 10% of the hash rate could end up capturing up to 25 to 30% of the total returns. Not by blocks but by recovery and this will lead to an economic incentivization others to do the same strategy. The rational choice is to follow this action.
Once a miner starts such a strategy, even a 2 to 3% total percentage of the network starts to become more profitable. By more profitable I mean 50 to 60% more profitable than other miners in the industry.
Think what that means.
CSW
Jan 6,. 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1610561442114600?thread_ts=1610549144.100200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2442
Not at 50%, but a 10% KYC miner will have legal redress against other nodes who orphan their blocks.
I really don’t think people are thought this through. A miner with 10% of the total hash rate manages to set up a node and then starts filtering addresses that are under a KYC/AML ban and then other miners decide to orphan blocks that this miner is now creating.
Think about the outcome here. The argument is that you should be able to enable and facilitate crime without consequence. The node who is following the law will be the one that the court supports. So, if the node decides to take action for all of the lost blocks, not only will they gain compensation for any block that is orphaned but also the cost of taking and executing the enforcement action.
Think about the rational outcome to such a strategy. A miner who does not follow AML will end up with court orders against them and eventually have their assets seized. For every block that they allow, they create a competitive advantage that will help grow the smaller miners who are compliant.
The node operators will think about this. A node with 10% of the hash rate could end up capturing up to 25 to 30% of the total returns. Not by blocks but by recovery and this will lead to an economic incentivization others to do the same strategy. The rational choice is to follow this action.
Once a miner starts such a strategy, even a 2 to 3% total percentage of the network starts to become more profitable. By more profitable I mean 50 to 60% more profitable than other miners in the industry.
Think what that means.
CSW
Jan 6,. 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1610561442114600?thread_ts=1610549144.100200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2442
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Jan 6,. 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1610561442114600?thread_ts=1610549144.100200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2442
Jan 6,. 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1610561442114600?thread_ts=1610549144.100200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2442
Yes.
I created bitcoin.
No, you can not decide how I prove. I chose law, I chose the courts. I chose to discredit anarchy.
I chose honesty.
I owe you nothing for using my protocol, but if you do it as cash, purposefully I thank you.
You can not prove identity with keys.
No method exists
To say it is possible is to be a fool or a liar
Others can innovative as well. Most get it wrong as they are trying to solve the wrong problem, the lie that has become the myth.
CSW
Feb 26, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614321187137300?thread_ts=1614321187.137300&cid=C5131HKFX
I created bitcoin.
No, you can not decide how I prove. I chose law, I chose the courts. I chose to discredit anarchy.
I chose honesty.
I owe you nothing for using my protocol, but if you do it as cash, purposefully I thank you.
You can not prove identity with keys.
No method exists
To say it is possible is to be a fool or a liar
Others can innovative as well. Most get it wrong as they are trying to solve the wrong problem, the lie that has become the myth.
CSW
Feb 26, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614321187137300?thread_ts=1614321187.137300&cid=C5131HKFX
You do not own your address. You own the tokens that are held in an address. Bitcoin firewalls identity that it does not remove the need for identity. You cannot sign anonymously. There is no such thing. Pseudonymous signatures can be linked to a non-public identity. Identity cannot be transferred. There is no such thing as the ability to transfer identity. It is not a technical problem, it doesn’t exist. It is not something that needs to be solved, it is a definitional condition. You cannot sell or transfer identity.
This is where Antonopoulos and others went wrong on the Silk Road case. Making up the Dread Pirate Roberts defence was asinine. If multiple people use the same key, this does not change identity but rather links each individual vicariously. You don’t remove liability cover add extra people to the liability. In criminal law, where multiple people are involved in a crime, all of those people are guilty.
There have been provisions for many years that mean that in certain crimes, every single individual that has anything to do with the crime is equally guilty.
Consequently, you do not remove guilt by saying you bought the key. You are just as guilty if you did that. If you receive someone else’s key, and you do this willingly, you are willingly attaching yourself to all of the liability that goes with that key. You cannot assume identity but you can take other people’s guilt and share it. This does not mean that another person would get off but rather makes both people equally guilty. Criminal prosecution is not a zero-sum game. If two individuals are involved the total length of prison time just doubles.
When we are talking about small transactions, anything under £1000 or so, then the levels of protections and controls can remain limited. There are different provisions for cash then there are four large transactions. This does not change because you’re using bitcoin.
These are the people who are opposed to recovery of BTC
Arrest =/= charged =/= conviction
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614421233352100?thread_ts=1614421233.352100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2477
This is where Antonopoulos and others went wrong on the Silk Road case. Making up the Dread Pirate Roberts defence was asinine. If multiple people use the same key, this does not change identity but rather links each individual vicariously. You don’t remove liability cover add extra people to the liability. In criminal law, where multiple people are involved in a crime, all of those people are guilty.
There have been provisions for many years that mean that in certain crimes, every single individual that has anything to do with the crime is equally guilty.
Consequently, you do not remove guilt by saying you bought the key. You are just as guilty if you did that. If you receive someone else’s key, and you do this willingly, you are willingly attaching yourself to all of the liability that goes with that key. You cannot assume identity but you can take other people’s guilt and share it. This does not mean that another person would get off but rather makes both people equally guilty. Criminal prosecution is not a zero-sum game. If two individuals are involved the total length of prison time just doubles.
When we are talking about small transactions, anything under £1000 or so, then the levels of protections and controls can remain limited. There are different provisions for cash then there are four large transactions. This does not change because you’re using bitcoin.
These are the people who are opposed to recovery of BTC
Arrest =/= charged =/= conviction
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614421233352100?thread_ts=1614421233.352100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2477
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614421233352100?thread_ts=1614421233.352100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2477
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614421233352100?thread_ts=1614421233.352100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2477
The first thing people don't realise is that I don't follow the herd.
I do things my way. I succeed or fail my way. If you don't like it, too bad.
I have no obligation and I have never had any obligation to prove to people in any way or to do anything to the population at large in any way.
To think that I am required to all that I owe you is to show ignorance. Those who believe that because I created bitcoin means that I have to follow the group mentality have no idea about how bitcoin works.
It is not about democratising finance
It is not about the collective
Honestly, screw the collective
Bitcoin was created by one man, me.
I didn't receive large amounts of help or encouragement from anybody, so to think that I owe anybody now and that I should act in a manner that people state is how I should act is to fail to understand bitcoin
bitcoin is not about the collective
bitcoin works within the law
bitcoin is not opposed to governments or banks, it is a cash system
CSW
Apr 22, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1619089151200500?thread_ts=1619089151.200500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2523
I do things my way. I succeed or fail my way. If you don't like it, too bad.
I have no obligation and I have never had any obligation to prove to people in any way or to do anything to the population at large in any way.
To think that I am required to all that I owe you is to show ignorance. Those who believe that because I created bitcoin means that I have to follow the group mentality have no idea about how bitcoin works.
It is not about democratising finance
It is not about the collective
Honestly, screw the collective
Bitcoin was created by one man, me.
I didn't receive large amounts of help or encouragement from anybody, so to think that I owe anybody now and that I should act in a manner that people state is how I should act is to fail to understand bitcoin
bitcoin is not about the collective
bitcoin works within the law
bitcoin is not opposed to governments or banks, it is a cash system
CSW
Apr 22, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1619089151200500?thread_ts=1619089151.200500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2523
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Apr 22, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1619089151200500?thread_ts=1619089151.200500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2523
Apr 22, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1619089151200500?thread_ts=1619089151.200500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2523
There is a VERY fine line, BCH is on the tight rope
No digital signature needed...
Segwit alters it
Digital signature law....
Yes. Digital signature law is robust
Law is law
Code is evidence
More, but a signature is essential
CSW
May 07, 2018
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1525675677000169?thread_ts=1525675677.000169&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2569
No digital signature needed...
Segwit alters it
Digital signature law....
Yes. Digital signature law is robust
Law is law
Code is evidence
More, but a signature is essential
CSW
May 07, 2018
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1525675677000169?thread_ts=1525675677.000169&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2569
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
May 07, 2018
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1525675677000169?thread_ts=1525675677.000169&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2569
May 07, 2018
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1525675677000169?thread_ts=1525675677.000169&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2569
The definition of legal tender....
This is because of been asked this by a few of you are not going to keep typing it multiple times because doing exactly the same thing many times is rather insane
legal tender differs from currency
Legal tender is by definition the coins or banknotes that by law must be accepted if offered in payment of a debt.
That is, if tended they cannot be rejected if you want to get paid.
not all bank notes and coins issued by a country are legal tender
for instance, you cannot force a bus driver to take a handful of pennies
money in a bank is not legal tender
a bank transfer is not legal tender even though it is done in the national currency
In the case of El Salvador, merchants CAN accept BTC or other means if they so choose
the law states that they can
to be legal tender it needs to say that they must
As the Bank of England states, this does not mean that you can make a shop contract with you and accept cash but rather that you cannot sue for recovery of some other methodology of payment
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/what-is-legal-tender
if a shop decides they don't want to take cash, and they tell you this at first, you are still obligated to pay if you only have cash and you lie to the shop saying that you have card
as the Bank of England states, even banknotes are not legal tender throughout the entire United Kingdom with Scotland for instance not taking bank of England banknotes and only accepting coins
all that the pulse of the Dorian government has said is pass a fluffy law that says merchants who already had the ability to accept payment in bitcoin can accept payment in bitcoin
in reality it is utterly meaningless
to quote the Bank of England
Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in everyday life. It means that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to someone in legal tender, they can’t sue you for failing to repay.
remembering that you don't have a debt at a shop unless you have an account
when you make an offer to purchase goods at a store, it is not a debt
the transaction has not been completed and you don't have credit
it is only where you have credit and that you can be sued for non-payment that legal tender becomes involved in this exchange.
CSW
Jun 20, 2021 (14:08)
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1624190496318100?thread_ts=1624190496.318100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2619
This is because of been asked this by a few of you are not going to keep typing it multiple times because doing exactly the same thing many times is rather insane
legal tender differs from currency
Legal tender is by definition the coins or banknotes that by law must be accepted if offered in payment of a debt.
That is, if tended they cannot be rejected if you want to get paid.
not all bank notes and coins issued by a country are legal tender
for instance, you cannot force a bus driver to take a handful of pennies
money in a bank is not legal tender
a bank transfer is not legal tender even though it is done in the national currency
In the case of El Salvador, merchants CAN accept BTC or other means if they so choose
the law states that they can
to be legal tender it needs to say that they must
As the Bank of England states, this does not mean that you can make a shop contract with you and accept cash but rather that you cannot sue for recovery of some other methodology of payment
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/what-is-legal-tender
if a shop decides they don't want to take cash, and they tell you this at first, you are still obligated to pay if you only have cash and you lie to the shop saying that you have card
as the Bank of England states, even banknotes are not legal tender throughout the entire United Kingdom with Scotland for instance not taking bank of England banknotes and only accepting coins
all that the pulse of the Dorian government has said is pass a fluffy law that says merchants who already had the ability to accept payment in bitcoin can accept payment in bitcoin
in reality it is utterly meaningless
to quote the Bank of England
Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in everyday life. It means that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to someone in legal tender, they can’t sue you for failing to repay.
remembering that you don't have a debt at a shop unless you have an account
when you make an offer to purchase goods at a store, it is not a debt
the transaction has not been completed and you don't have credit
it is only where you have credit and that you can be sued for non-payment that legal tender becomes involved in this exchange.
CSW
Jun 20, 2021 (14:08)
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1624190496318100?thread_ts=1624190496.318100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2619
www.bankofengland.co.uk
What is legal tender?
Many people are confused about what legal tender means. It’s actually about settling debts rather than how you can pay for things.
Continúa la batalla por los derechos de autor del libro blanco de Bitcoin de Craig Wright
Zemes Gaoson
3 de julio de 2021
https://telegra.ph/Craig-Wrights-Bitcoin-Whitepaper-Copyright-Battle-Continues-By-Zemes-Gaoson-07-03
Zemes Gaoson
3 de julio de 2021
https://telegra.ph/Craig-Wrights-Bitcoin-Whitepaper-Copyright-Battle-Continues-By-Zemes-Gaoson-07-03
Telegraph
Continúa la batalla por los derechos de autor del libro blanco de Bitcoin de Craig Wright.
ramonquesada.com Continúa la batalla por los derechos de autor del libro blanco de Bitcoin de Craig Wright Zemes Gaoson 3 de julio de 2021 https://gaoson.medium.com/the-bitcoin-whitepaper-copyright-battle-continues-93d4bb54ac3a Craig Wright ganó una sentencia…
.@SimonCohen85 discusses the latest #litigation in a series of legal claims issued on behalf of Dr Wright with @ConnorSephton on the @CoinMarketCap podcast.
INTERVIEW: WHY HAS BITCOIN.ORG BEEN ORDERED TO TAKE DOWN THE WHITEPAPER FOR BITCOIN?
https://t.co/sOVNhmmwnL
INTERVIEW: WHY HAS BITCOIN.ORG BEEN ORDERED TO TAKE DOWN THE WHITEPAPER FOR BITCOIN?
https://t.co/sOVNhmmwnL
ONTIER DIGITAL
INTERVIEW: WHY HAS BITCOIN.ORG BEEN ORDERED TO TAKE DOWN THE WHITEPAPER FOR BITCOIN?
In a podcast last week with CoinMarketCap’s Connor Sephton, Simon Cohen discussed the English High Court's decision to award Dr Craig Wright default judgment against the pseudonymous operator of the bitcoin.org website for infringing Dr Wright's copyright…