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.
