Author: Peter Todd 2015-01-20 17:15:57
Published on: 2015-01-20T17:15:57+00:00
In an email conversation, Daniel Stadulis asked Peter Todd about whether developers who have auto-update capabilities only have the ability to give themselves custodial rights. Peter Todd replied that while programmers tend to have a narrow-minded pedantic logic, courts would likely see having the ability to give oneself the ability as equivalent to simply having the ability. He stated that what matters more is intent and that operating system authors had no intent to have a custodial relationship over anyone's BTC, so they would be off the hook. However, the authors of a Bitcoin wallet may be on the hook depending on how they go about it. For instance, Lighthouse has something called UpdateFX, which allows for multi-signature updates. It also supports deterministic builds and allows users to choose whether or not they will follow new updates automatically or only update on demand. In a court, this could be brought up as examples of intent not to have a custodial relationship, which may be enough to sway judge/jury and certainly help avoid ending up in court in the first place by virtue of the fact that all those protections help avoid theft and increase the number of people that an authority needs to involve to seize funds via an update.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T15:40:32.724818+00:00