You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Darthknight = blocktrades = alpha = ... so on.
Ok so we dont have principles. But would you admit that old witnesses are criminals too then? Otherwise you would be a hypocrite as well.
Ok so we dont have principles. But would you admit that old witnesses are criminals too then? Otherwise you would be a hypocrite as well.
I'm not debating an opinion of what constitutes a crime or who I consider is a criminal. That would be within the purview of a judge to decide in whatever jurisdiction he or she presides over.
Both sides in the prior event had an arguable claim to the development fund, so it most likely would have resulted in a civil decision not a criminal one. How does this particular action (22.8888) equate to an arguable claim on restricting the funds of @blocktrades or @darthknight? They are merely using the prior act as justification, which is a deeply flawed one in my opinion. An action such as this with no demonstrable claim would constitute more of a crime in my opinion, especially now that monetary damage has been done to one of the parties.
There is clear evidence that an attempt to broadcast a change of route was made, and clear evidence of interference via 22.8888. You can harp on 'it was his mistake' all you want, but as I said, there is clear evidence the soft fork prevented him from remediation. Best case for the witnesses, they have civil liability, and depending on the jurisdiction they are in, perhaps criminal. I'm not going to postulate one way or the other.