This article outlines the difference between btc, bch, eth, lite and other forks PERFECTLY.
btc and bch are going to be in legal trouble — specifically their miners who retain the original pre-forked database. CSW’s argument is solid, and it shows he’s been studying law for quite some time.
There are those who will read this as “harsh”, but those people ignore what would seem obvious in any other corporate context. For example…
If Marc Benioff, instead of forming Salesforce.com, had instead forked Oracle’s open source database (which probably wasn’t possible back then, but in today’s world it’s possible) with an MIT license, FINE. But here’s what btc did using this example:
Benioff then doesn’t erase the data in the forked database, so he begins selling a database with Larry Ellison’s information stored inside.
Benioff then names his company Oracle. Larry Ellison is like WTF? You can fork the database, the EMPTY database and start at nothing like Oracle did, but you can’t ALSO steal the name! And because of how the world worked in Bitcoin, with naming votes being decided by exchanges, Larry Ellison was forced to rename his company… “Oracle Larry’s Vision”.
This example points out the ABSURDITY of what btc “core” in fact did. At no point in time did the inventor of Bitcoin sanction this; in fact, he fought BOTH forks tooth-and-nail to no avail.
Great article! It’s all “in there” as Prego used to like to say.