Though there are many ways to defame someone, there is one very well established way that makes you automatically guilty of libel -- stating that a person has committed a crime, when they have not been found guilty by a court of law. This is why journalists are extremely careful to talk about the man "alleged to have done X" or "charged with X", but never "the man who did X" until after a guilty verdict has been rendered. Chris DeRose's statement was unquestionably libel. Whether Coindesk participated in the libel by printing in that form it would be up for grabs.
well, regardless of conflict, if one party is publicly making accusations of active fraud/criminality, burden of proof is not on the accused party.
this is made even more amusing considering that total transparency is baked into the code and the platform itself. if criminality does exist, one would think it could/would have been found by now.
burden of proof is on..... who?
Though there are many ways to defame someone, there is one very well established way that makes you automatically guilty of libel -- stating that a person has committed a crime, when they have not been found guilty by a court of law. This is why journalists are extremely careful to talk about the man "alleged to have done X" or "charged with X", but never "the man who did X" until after a guilty verdict has been rendered. Chris DeRose's statement was unquestionably libel. Whether Coindesk participated in the libel by printing in that form it would be up for grabs.
Idk I have seen conflict from both sides.
well, regardless of conflict, if one party is publicly making accusations of active fraud/criminality, burden of proof is not on the accused party.
this is made even more amusing considering that total transparency is baked into the code and the platform itself. if criminality does exist, one would think it could/would have been found by now.