Discussion
nostr:npub1q7wwvymkxxjz2acry88txjpvfs3gcmkvw2kfep39vcvx0um07vyqckn9yq do you know her npub (or the org's)?
she told me she was here but I couldn't find her; I offered to help with some funding through nostr
Yay!! There you are finally - right here where you belong (with me).๐๐ฆ๐ซ๐งก๐
Youโve already missed a lot. Forbes feature on nostr. Umbrelโs home kit. Odellโs book. You need to get caught up asap.๐งก๐ซ๐
Defend Bitcoin.๐๏ธโ๏ธ๐งกโ๏ธ๐โ๏ธ๐๏ธ
it seems to me if cw won both of these cases, he would be held in fiduciary responsibility for everything since he claims to be satoshi. like i have said: let him "be satoshi". since he is not, he will fall victim to his own scam. the prescient for open source liability is negated with a simple waiver of liability held by each developer - all pow is sourced to the white paper/genesis. you don't sue the world because you lose your car keys: it's negligence on the part of the courts to entertain him. production of his own keys without proof of a hack is his own responsibility. regardless: let him be satoshi and take fiduciary responsibly for the blockchain. it will bankrupt him. it will also unearth his drivers - because he won't want to be accountable so he will turn in those pressuring him to antagonize the system.
file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/02/02/C1F26563-4D50-4C5E-A155-46820C9D7C02/Tulip-v-Van-Der-Laan-judgment-030223.pdf 
Second amendment
๐๐ซ๐ค