[chippiewill]

I think the issue is that you cannot use a warranty to absolve yourself of a fiduciary responsibility. Otherwise your Bank would use a warranty to absolve themselves of responsibility over your bank account.

The legal case is not that the Bitcoin developers are liable for their software alone. It's that they might have a duty owing to the control they can exert over the Bitcoin _network_ (through their control of the "official" software repository). There are a couple of careful points to temper this judgement:

1. It's has not been decided that Bitcoin developers _do_ have some control over the Bitcoin network. The question of whether Bitcoin is centrally controlled to some extent or truly distributed cannot be summarily decided by a judge or the court of appeals. It _should_ go to trial. 2. It's not been decided that the Bitcoin developers have a fiduciary responsibility even if they do have control over the network. 3. It's not been decided whether or not Tulip could successfully argue that the Bitcoin addresses do in fact belong to them 3. It's not been decided what action, if any, the Bitcoin developers should be compelled to make if all the previous points are decided in Tulips favor.

[midmagico]

No, this is false, because you have a direct relationship with your bank in the form of a contract, payment for services, and a direct monetary/depositor relationship.

If this analogy were closer to reality, it would be like claiming that a bank has a fiduciary duty to someone who not only doesn't have an account with them, but also put their cash money in a barrel and deliberately burned it.

Except it's not even that, because there's no bank-like structure going on here. The code itself didn't create the forms of money that followed—it merely recognizes it as valid on an ongoing basis from people who used it to perform that work themselves.

So, I mean the analogy is false at any rate..