You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Pro Bono Legal Opinion for Victims of Steem HF23 & Bittrex

in #hf234 years ago

There is a difference between centralized governance and decentralized consensus. The only reason decentralized consensus is "wild wild west" is that there is no one to sue. You can't sue bitcoin, etc. However, when you buy 30% of the dev fund in an OTC deal from the founding company, it turns steem into a security. Now, there is someone to sue and a legal target here, if someone wanted to sue they could.

For decentralized consensus to steal funds, wherever the funds ended up would be liable, if they sent to null that would be a very weird spot and you'd probably be fucked there. But people steal because they are greedy. The decentralized consensus wouldn't hurt the chain as it would hurt their own investment. Justin Sun does not care what the west thinks of us and he can spin the media in the east as our voices are not heard. He has market makers to pump the price even if he steals from you. This is apples and oranges not only from a consensus standpoint but from an incentive standpoint.

Sort:  

For decentralized consensus to steal funds, wherever the funds ended up would be liable, if they sent to null that would be a very weird spot and you'd probably be fucked there.

Interesting as all hell. I have no idea what the result would be if it all got nulled. Guess it would partly be up to you too if that happened.

There is many choices available to seek legal recourse and/or pecuniary relief but see it flourish in the near future for all matters involving blockchain.

The only reason decentralized consensus is "wild wild west" is that there is no one to sue.

I can see a future where a specific decentralized environment and every beneficiary or participant of it is held proportionately liable to pay damages/ penalties for any civil or criminal case won in a court of law.
The defendant named would be that specific decentralized environment, as if the road upon which a car crash occurred was named as a defendant party to the plaintiff's loss!

If it does ever get attempted, then that's when the really spicy times begin. the mind boggles!

You made great points, but I still think this would be debatable in court. I don't know if there is precedent for such a case, or if owning 30% of a decentralized blockchain can make it a security.

It definitely is a reasonable argument, and I am curious to see how this would play out in court. In any case what matters is that you guys get the money back, and hopefully without lawyers.