How so? To justify our thieving?
Discussion
As long as Bitcoin is leaderless, there is no head for the state to chop off. The downfall of most cryptocurrencies is that they have a centralized team of developers.
Does that imply that we can take over something that’s not ours to take?
Bitcoin is Satoshi’s intellectual property as a brand, and without Satoshi, what’s the difference from violating any other brand’s intellectual property rights?
Bitcoin was released as open source. Intellectual property doesn't apply.
Says who? Those making sure Satoshi disappeared? Wasn’t that blockchain?
Prove it being open sources as a brand.
Intellectual property is terrorism of the mind
She was dressed slutty to justify rape is a weak argument, you pedo profiteering scum.
'I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. '
Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace
by John Perry Barlow
Noble idea, while as long as cyberspace is running on electricity, I’m afraid the laws and regulations which make’s electricity to power cyberspace will stand, as to again justify rapist gangbanging because she is dressed slutty is a weak argument.
What does this mean "they want satoshi disappeared?"
I don’t know, Peter. Maybe we should just get training on Fanta to see if that time works to overcome the problem.
Without Satoshi, nations adapting to bitcoin crash into third world countries since the causalities turn corrupt when nations economy, which is quite foundational, becomes a thieving mess.
Pudding?
While at it, Pete, let’s slap in fake tits and pretend to lactate as a mother and get offended when someone argues a womb makes a woman.
Then how we need all these lies, misinformation and fakeness to justify taking over something that’s not ours to take explains the need for systematic machine tyranny of needleworks, needing papers to go shopping, and boosters to go with the war, from which as it appears, the cost is exceeding the value, both in terms of monetary value and lives.
Blockchain is great, but Bitcoin is not public property somehow, since an intellectual property owned by Satoshi.
That's not at all how open source works.
That doesn’t prove satoshis white paper on blockchain and Bitcoin as a proof of work is a public open source brand, does it?
All going about knowhow to rape innovators and entrepreneurs is not open sourcing, is it?
Liberty is not a can game, is it?
Yes it does. Bitcoin core is released under the MIT license. Look up the MIT software license.
This is how open source works. Anyone is free to use, copy, modify the code as they see fit, they just have to include the original license.
That’s blockchain though, not Bitcoin, since a commercial implementation of a protocol, open source doesn’t apply not without Satoshi.
But for the sake of argument, since my search was fruitless, please do provide a source for Bitcoin being open sourced, since I believe the protocol and blockchain was open sourced, not the brand.
There is no brand.
Says who? The pirates and their rapist gangbangers?
Please do prove it, as difficult to argue Bitcoin not being a brand.
There is no brand.
People shilling a brand are scammers.
Spoken like a thieving mother.
Not quite a convincing argument thus far, and now it’s not for me to judge, but that of case is quite difficult to pretend about, wouldn’t you agree?
Hence, to save lives and so forth, let’s prove the point instead of trying to deflect with projections of what is happening.
At the moment, unless proven elsewise, that’s the #main ruling.
IF THIEVES { WIPE THE MTRFKR OUT }
⚡️
Absolute nonsense!
No, I don’t believe it is nonsense at all when a brand is holding a revenue of trillions, where motives of crime is simple to understand.
Now prove the open source brand or the ruling stands.
#main
Then how simple it is to hold Bitcoin traders accountable, well, Internet never forgets, right?
Slight problem for your thesis:
You can never take it back once you opensource something.
Another slight problem:
If you want to claim ownership of an IP, you need to prove it in court.
Like faketoshi! 🤣
Like needlework and individual freedoms being raped systematically by machines enforcing individual tagging to breathe.
🤷♂️
Open source doesn’t imply free use, as little as she being dressed slutty is an invitation to rape her, as Bitcoin as a brand is not open sourced.
There is no Bitcoin brand and the software is open source. You are failing to grasp these concepts.
Prove it.
Github is all the proof you need: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
You don't understand how open source software works and your arguments are invalid.
Doubt that’s satoshis repository, and then whether satoshis white paper holds true, and valid proof of work a different story.
Prove the validity from something when bitcoin and blockchain was published about a decade and a half ago.