I saw it on twitter. Awful.

Why do they even have this? Can’t they allow access to their clients for the assets on both sides of the hard fork?

hope he got plenty of grief for it then

They blasted his ass 🙂

Apparently it’s somewhat boilerplate as forking has to be considered for this kind of vehicle but many are speculating this will be the setup for a “clean” Bitcoin to emerge which is government sanctioned.

I think people are well and truly learning that corporations are bad for Bitcoin. Not everyone though. Can't believe the mindless salivating I'm seeing over on bird app for big daddy Finkie's big black boot.

Yeah - seems weird. Not a lawyer, but the boilerplate seems like it could just as easily say “every side of hard forked assets will always belong to and be accessible by the user” If we take a hard fork to change the block size for example - your keys will still correctly sign transactions in both chains, and your balance will be the same in both, it’s just that nodes will allow future transactions to Jon blocks of different sizes in the future.. maybe transaction broadcasting could be different?? Doesn’t make any sense. Maybe their lawyers are simply only as informed as that coinbase guy

I agree - this seems like an attack… ethW lost a similar battle 🤔🤔🤔

Suggest you read this View quoted note → Like everything Allen writes it’s long and detailed but very clever and entertaining

Wow, Joseph Kunzler really seems to get it 😂 They can vote for increased supply anytime they wish. Sure they can, won't work though 🤷🏻‍♀️ How can people still think this was a valid argument?