Bitcoin Forum

I'm just informing. --- no comment ---

Bitcoin trial: (Wright) Defendant wins dispute over $50B in Bitcoin
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-trial-defendant-wins-keeps-173905475.html

Craig Wright Cleared of All Charges Except a Conversion Count, Jury Awards $100 Million to W&K Info Defense
https://news.bitcoin.com/craig-wright-cleared-of-all-charges-except-a-conversion-count-jury-awards-100-million-to-wk-info-defense/ (https://news.bitcoin.com/craig-wright-cleared-of-all-charges-except-a-conversion-count-jury-awards-100-million-to-wk-info-defense/)

Australian who says he invented Bitcoin to keep $71b stash after winning trial
https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/australian-to-keep-billions-in-bitcoins-after-winning-trial-20211207-p59fcm.html (https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/australian-to-keep-billions-in-bitcoins-after-winning-trial-20211207-p59fcm.html)

Bitcoin trial: Defendant wins, keeps Bitcoins worth $50B
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2021/dec/06/bitcoin-trial-defendant-wins-keeps-bitcoins-worth-/

Bitcoin creator Craig Wright 100% Satoshi Nakamoto
https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-creator-craig-wright-100-satoshi-nakamoto-says-kleiman-v-wright-jury/ (https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-creator-craig-wright-100-satoshi-nakamoto-says-kleiman-v-wright-jury/)


(edited)

Now, the he won the trial, can he prove the ownership of those bitcoins? This is what we are waiting for as CW can't prove his ownership. Because as said before, he will prove his ownership once he wins the trial. And also, he plans to donate much of those to charity. So can he move those bitcoins? That's the next big question here. This is interesting to follow if he can really prove such ownership.

the case has NOT proved "satoshi"

it has just proved thats dave K was not part of a company Wright set up in 2013.
that is all.. moving on

'Wright’s lawyer Rivero reconfirmed Wright’s plans to donate much of his Bitcoin fortune.'
If he donates, he will move them (Satoshi's coins).

I don't understand why he waited so long then. He could have signed a message, couldn't he? He didn't need to move them. If he really moves them, will he have done that to create expectation?

https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/australian-to-keep-billions-in-bitcoins-after-winning-trial-20211207-p59fcm.html (https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/australian-to-keep-billions-in-bitcoins-after-winning-trial-20211207-p59fcm.html)
'Craig Wright, an Australian computer scientist who claims to be the inventor of Bitcoin, prevailed in a highly publicised trial on Monday in Florida that will allow him to hold onto a hoard of Bitcoins worth tens of billions of dollars.'

How can the jury allow him to hold these (Satoshi's) Bitcoin, if he is not the owner?

the jurys verdict is nothing to do with "satoshi"
again for emphasis. the jury did not give wright any coin or say that wright is the owner of the coin.
its purely about business ownership of a company set up in 2013

wright is not satoshi and thus does not have the private keys to move any coins from 2009. and so there is going to be no coin drama involving the 2009 stash..

calm down folks. its a meaningless verdict thats about business ownership nothing more.

the funny thing is by having a verdict that wright owns the company. now the australian tax office can sue wright for all the tax grant scamming.

im guessing wrights next game is to say he cant move the coins (his excuse) as it would then prove he owns the company(instead of linda(ex wife)) which would lead to the australian tax office lawsuit, so will (his excuse) not move coins to prevent being sued (lame excuse, but what do you expect from wright)

but overall remember
wright is, nor ever has been satoshi. wright never had the private keys. the coins wont move due to wright. so calm down folks. .. wright is still insignificant

edit for below post:
doesnt happen much but i agree with doomad on this one so lets reward him for it

OP: Please avoid providing links to coingeek/Calvin Ayre, the chief propagandist for faketoshi.  Just about everything posted on that site could be considered malicious, misrepresentative or illegitimate.  They don't deserve any traffic from this forum.  

The case doesn't prove anything, aside from the fact that both the judicial system and the media can be manipulated by con-men to further their own sordid agendas.  All we're going to see from Wright is more empty boasting and hot air.  He can't provide any form of proof that would satisfy anyone with more than two braincells to rub together.  Only the gullible and weak minded will continue to believe his lies.

I don't know if the jury is to be blamed here but some articles writer are funny sometimes because the content of the news illustrates that Craig Wright won a case against the David Kleiman family while the article topic was saying Craig Wright is Satoshi whereas he has provided tangible proof of him to be the Bitcoin creator.

If he was the real owner of Bitcoin he would not be bothering over such petty court cases and could easily prove it in seconds by just moving a tiny amount of mbtc to demonstrate he has control of this fortune. The real owner is likely deceased or it could even be some sort of governmental agency (much like the military effectively invented the internet for the original purpose of internal communication). If you own that much money, or even half of that amount, then the last thing you should be doing is bothering to waste time in court. I do wonder whether he will have to pay his own court costs, because if he isn't the real owner then he has wasted a lot of money to prove an insignificant point.

from the start, CW's goal of claiming to be a satoshi was just to steal people's attention in order to market its shitcoin called "Bitcoin SV".  i still remember very well how a correspondent almost hit him when he insisted that he was the real satoshi.  the jury does the right thing, the truth will always be revealed.

wright has no value.
his only earnings are from speaking jobs at conventions.
he has a sugar daddy called calvin ayre who is fronting the legal costs where wright promises ayre's returns in income from projects and books deals and movie deals.
makes me laugh how much ayre's has fronted for wright and hopes to get rich from wright.. never gonna happen

Only wanted to inform the community.

Edited first post and changed topic to: Bitcoin creator? Craig Wright 100% Satoshi Nakamoto?

There was a lot of discussion about faketoshi previously. They tried to prove Craig Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto in the forum as well. But they failed to do so and were refused by the community. He is just a scammer, does not have any proper evidence to support his claim. He failed to sign a message from Satoshi Nakamoto's address. There is no alternative to prove him as Satoshi Nakamoto. At least I wouldn't believe Satoshi would lose all of his Bitcoin address private keys who created the ecosystem. Even Craig Wright is Satoshi really then we don't need him. Because Bitcoin is a decentralized cryptocurrency, doesn't matter who created that. Satoshi won't destroy his kingdom by creating a scam coin.

The amount of misinformation on this is truly astounding.

Wright was accused a dozen different forms of liability.  None of the questions to the jury had *anything* to do with Wright being Satoshi.

Bitcoin experts agree that it is well established that Wright didn't have anything to do with the creation of Bitcoin.

The jury found wright civilly liable for stealing $100 million dollars from his dead's friend's business.

(Likely because wright essentially impersonated the business in an Australian court, playing as both the plaintiff and the defendant and then agreed with himself to hand over tens of millions in fictional assets, as part of his effort to get away with tax fraud)

So a correct title would be something like "$100 million dollar civil judgement against Satoshi imposter for stealing".

For those of you who think wright's fraud is benign or only hurts people foolish enough to fall for it, I have bad news.  Wright is engaging in a dozen other lawsuits against Bitcoin community members, journalists, and developers.

E.g. Wright is demanding a dozen former and current Bitcoin developers-- including myself-- to publish backdoored bitcoin software to enable him to take control of a huge pile of old bitcoins (which obviously belong to other people) because Wright claims to have lost the private keys, and if they fail to help him, he demands they pay him 111k BTC in damages.  He's also bankrupted Bitcoin podcaster Peter McCormack with legal fees defending an obviously spurious defamation claim which hasn't even made it to trial yet.

Even though he'll ultimately fail in his vexatious litigation that won't stop him from causing people millions of dollars in expenses, countless wasted hours, and immeasurable amounts of stress -- and if that's the cost of participating then many reasonable people will choose to not expose themselves to it.

Well, thank you for that information @gmaxwell, you have disclosed the dirty moves of Craig Wright which is the very worst person that has committed different crimes and he did not able to prove himself that he is the real creator of bitcoin. He has different fraud activities and for sure if he will succeed in his plan I don't know what will happen to bitcoin. What a desperate person just to be pretended that he is a satoshi, demanding developers and pay them a billion dollars just to publish backdoored bitcoin, he must in jail in that way.

So you also fell for this crap? Come on @mynonce

There's only one much more legit way for CW to prove his claims and he has failed to do so. Given how malicious and greedy CW is, If he had access to the satoshi era addresses, don't you think he would have already signed the much needed message spent all the Bitcoins in there to fund his shitcoin since he nolonger believes in Bitcoin?

Exactly that.Just a single signed message from him from one of the addresses we all know belong to Satoshi would solve everything.As long as he cannot prove it he is not Satoshi,as simple as that.

What I meant was, why is the court not saying: Before we discuss if or how much you owe other people, you have to prove that you are the owner of these Bitcoin.

Great, this is just like Greg Maxwell telling me I can keep Satoshi's coins,
Like they are controlled by someone else who has authority to grant that permission and like
what the hell can I do with my new power over something I dont possess.

In order to keep something you must first have it and be in a position to hand it back or pass
it on to someone else.

I'm not opening any of those links in the op, they are filled with nonsense

That's exactly what I meant.

One of the main things that we do need for him to prove out if he's really Satoshi but still it havent done yet which same as you said these claims would turn out to be
trolling because as long he doesnt able to prove out anything then they would really be just those faketoshi who do claim out that they are satoshi.
We do just only need some signed message or moving out some funds in one of satoshi wallets and that would really be enough.

Just a signed message of Bitcoin address that's publicly known by satoshi.  No proof it means he is telling a lie and he is nonsense and should people put him or their ignore list.

So, that's a big NO, he isn't a Bitcoin creator and he isn't a Satoshi Nakamoto.  He is just an attention seeker just to promote his own coin as well and called it "BSV" which is I doubt, the reason he was trying to impersonate as a Bitcoin creator just because of his coin. 

It's very well said, Greg Maxwell, so you think now that this who claiming Satoshi is the real one? 

From this article (https://decrypt.co/87679/craig-wright-avoids-170-billion-bitcoin-lawsuit-claim-must-pay-100m?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sm):

He can't prove anything about that claims so why still keep having discussion about this? Once he can sign a message which what people want to ask from him then maybe we will believe that he is real Satoshi Nakamoto but if he just bluffing and want medias attention then he's not different from the other who claim that they are the real creator.

There are so many clowns everywhere so don't believe easily on what people tell unless they can show something that can verify their claims.

'The Australia-born Wright, who later moved to London, in May sued here 16 software developers to secure around 111,000 bitcoin now worth about $5.4 billion that he claimed he owns.' https://www.reuters.com/article/us-crypto-currency-lawsuit/self-proclaimed-bitcoin-inventor-largely-prevails-in-54-billion-bitcoin-trial-idUSKBN2IL25A (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-crypto-currency-lawsuit/self-proclaimed-bitcoin-inventor-largely-prevails-in-54-billion-bitcoin-trial-idUSKBN2IL25A)

'In a case that was promptly labelled "bogus" by one defendant, Craig Wright is demanding that developers allow him to retrieve around 111,000 bitcoin held at two digital addresses that he does not have private keys for.' https://www.reuters.com/technology/australias-wright-launches-lawsuit-over-57-bln-bitcoin-haul-2021-05-12/ (https://www.reuters.com/technology/australias-wright-launches-lawsuit-over-57-bln-bitcoin-haul-2021-05-12/)


@gmaxwell: I didn't know this.

the case revolves around the company W&K. created in 2013. and who are the directors/founders of the company

its not to do with satoshi proof.
the crap media of coingeek is making it sound like its to do with satoshi proof

but the actual court stuff is to do with ownership claims of a company.. a company that was not even in existance in 2008-2011

the court did not need to see proof of the collateral of the company. because the case was not about the collateral. it didnt need to legally ensure the collateral was real or that the company was legally valued at 110kcoin. because it was not what the court was judging.(both parties just said they agree thats the company value, thus no contention to need to prove)

again the verdict was not about ownership and proof of custody of the coins. it was just about the company

the whole 'one party owes 50% of XX' claim. does not mean proof that X exists within one or both parties. it just means that both parties made a verbal agreement of those terms that one needs to pay the other 50% of XX. even if XX does not exist between them.

put it this way.
lets make up an item. 'pink fluffy eggs with spikes'(something that does not exist in reality)
i can set up a company with someone and claim we have 1million P.F.E.W.S. and later we can disagree on who owns a company.
we can go to court and both make claims of ownership of the company and say that there are 1million p.f.e.w.s as collateral in a company. and whoever wins a trial about the company ownership gets to keep the p.f.e.w.s.
the trial shows i win the company name and ownership.
but the existence of the p.f.e.w.s is still not proved, nor had to be,
any payment arrangement of one side to the other is then back to me and the partner in private. whereby i can then just tell the judge without any movement of p.f.e.w.s that i am settled and received my half and happy that the trial is over.

none of this creates p.f.e.w.s nor does it prove p.f.e.w.s ever existed in the companies custody

And this is what Satoshi said (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=198.msg1647#msg1647)

Because that isn't how courts work: Wright claims to have $x billion bitcoins and so anyone suing him is legally entitled to take his word for it.  For it to be an issue in any civil trial the parties would have to be fighting over it.  Civil court exists to arbitrate specific disputes between specific parties, not to determine the truth or impose any kind of cosmic fairness-- they're only supposed to settle the dispute.

In this case, all they were fighting over is what Wright owed the company of his dead friend.  And the jury found that Wright owed $100 million from plundering the company of vaguely specified "intellectual property" that wright pretended to be dave's company to get in AU court, and then wright sold to Calvin Ayre for a few million to form the basis of nChain.

The jury wasn't asked anything about Bitcoin other than how many dollars in damages the family was owed due to wright stealing Bitcoins from Dave and his company, and for that they decided $0  -- potentially because they correctly concluded that wright never had any.  The family tried to argue on the basis of Wright's document that wright also owed billions of dollars worth of Bitcoin but the documents that they got from Wright which claimed that Wright had Bitcoins were all forgeries and as a result not very convincing, but Wright more or less admitted that he raided these companies via false court cases.

I got it now.

@satoshi: support the Bitcoin community, we need a convenient message and a signature, somewhere, somehow

For all anyone knows Satoshi isn't even alive anymore.  It's probably for the best.

Moreover, it's not clear that it would help:  While it isn't a signature by Satoshi, under oath Craig wright provided a list of the bitcoin holdings he claims he mined as satoshi... thousands of early addresses. ... and as soon as the list was published the owner(s) of 145 of the addresses, controlling 7250 BTC, signed a message (https://cswarchive.info/csw-filed#145-Signings) saying those addresses didn't belong to Wright and that Wright was a fraud.

This seems to have little to no effect.  This utter demolision of Wright's claims has been almost entirely ignored by the media because Wright and his conspirators have extensive influence over the media by putting out a constant stream of articles that lazy journalists can copy-and-tweak into their own articles.

What will be the impact of this news on the bitcoin market? because they putting this news on the front page and everyone is currently talking about it today.

I think if they also published about this guy's false claims, they won't really be bothered about what he says anymore. But unfortunately, they won't gonna do that because they might already get some tips from him.

I think he's full of shit and doesn't have the private keys.  I think his end game and next legal battle will be to try to use the courts to force mining pools to recognize Wright as the owner of those millions of bitcoins and give him access to the coins through a fork or some other way ... that even theoretically possible? 

Yeah satoshi nakamoto itself must be an anonymous guy which won't reveal his identity that's why he was using a fake name, if this man really invented bitcoin they will not using fake name since his showmanship is high and want to pbe popular among the cryptocurrency users.
So i don't think it's true, but one thing that i trust that satoshi is not a person but a group of people who created the whole blockchain system and they are still involved about bitcoin development until now.

Is this https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.512.7.pdf (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.512.7.pdf) the list?

No, miners can't do anything there--  I mean anyone can create a fork of Bitcoin at any time, but the only way someone follows that fork is that they choose to adopt it. And no one but Wright would choose to accept a fork that steals coins for him.  (He already has a fork that doesn't steal coins and it has well under 1% of Bitcoin's hashpower, way less than 1% of Bitcoin's value, and less than 40 reachable nodes).

Also in Wright's lawsuit against varrious former and current Bitcoin developers Wright states in a sworn statement that miners have no control ... so this would probably completely undermine his ability to litigate against any miners.


Wright's known ongoing attacks are:

1.  File SLAPP litigation against journalists and community members to induce self-censorship of voices that call out his fraud.  This is a key plank to his media control-- if you look at todays mainstream reporting they almost all universally repeat wright's laughably false narrative.

2. File spurious litigation to try to get control of bitcoin domain names.  There was an existing lawsuit against bitcoin.org, which is still effectively ongoing because they've demanded like a million dollars in fees, he's also threatened a new lawsuit against bitcoin.org and bitcoincore.org for stealing the Bitcoin name.

3. File spurious litigation against respected Bitcoin technical experts, particularly ones who have discredited his claims of being Satoshi.  Wright hopes to harass the remaining developers out of participating (and discourage older ones from coming back), and failing that destroy their reputations by trying to force them to create and distribute backdoored code that he's demanding.  Wright also alleges that the developers lack any standing to challenge his claim of owning these coins.

4. Target developers with patent and "database rights" litigation, which he's also started threatening.

He may be attempting to take over bitcoin development by driving the reasonable OGs out and then adding new people who are secretly on his payroll, potentially operating under pseudonyms.

He's also threatened a number of large exchanges that don't list BSV, but it's not clear how important these moves are or if they're just for PR sake.  Coinbase is already subject to dozens of lawsuits and against a company of their size and wealth another bullshit lawsuit has about zero intimidation effect.  By comparison, to a volunteer open source developer a spurious lawsuit can mean a ruinous imposition of expenses and time, and really make it a poor personal decision to contribute.


Yes, if you scroll up on that page I linked to it also has more background information.

I checked your link with the signatures. Yes, the owners sign this message. Maybe @satoshi can add one signature to this list. Do you know the patoshi pattern? https://bitslog.com/2019/04/16/the-return-of-the-deniers-and-the-revenge-of-patoshi/ (https://bitslog.com/2019/04/16/the-return-of-the-deniers-and-the-revenge-of-patoshi/) If one of these addresses could publish a signature, I would know that it is Satoshi.

If he patents blockchain, would it mean that it will not be open source, and does it mean all other altcoins may also be affected?

The market is already bad because of the ETFs that don't contribute to the network and then this CSW won the case that he can't even prove by signing. The fud will continue to grow this time. Taking over the development of BTC is the worse, would the community leave BTC all for Wright's claim?

He can't obtain a valid patent on that because bitcoin is open and unpatented years before Wright ever heard of it.  Once something is published that becomes a bar to patentability called prior art.  But this doesn't stop someone from making spurious patent lawsuits as a form of harassment, they'll ultimately lose, but they still waste their opponents time and money.

Of course, he could attack altcoins but most major altcoins have massive premines that they can use to pay him off-- or use to fund litigation to stop him.  His scheme mostly centers around harassing Bitcoin and Bitcoin forks and so far he's left other altcoins alone.

There isn't any particular reason to believe those blocks were mined by Satoshi rather than some other early miner.  Other than the genesis block the only block we have a pretty good reason to believe is Satoshi is block 9 (pretty good because hal claimed satoshi used it to send him the first transaction) -- and it doesn't fit that pattern. Regardless of who mined those blocks, they probably don't want to do anything that would identify themselves... even assuming they still have the keys.  A lot of coins mined in the first year have likely just been lost.  Bitcoin was essentially worthless then.

But my point was it doesn't matter if Satoshi hasn't signed-- because the signatures by other people have conclusively proved that Wright is lying about his early bitcoin holdings-- not just casually but in court too! ... no Satoshi involvement needed!

It's like if I claimed that I had traveled to and landed on the moon but dismantled and disposed of my rocket after the fact. Kind of hard to disprove.  But then you ask me where I landed and I gave a list of specific landing sites, swore they were correct and carefully recorded under oath, and you sent up a team and verified that no one had ever landed at some of those sites.  You'd have to be insane to believe my moon landing story after that-- it was suspect to begin with, but after checking you proved that I was at least partially lying about it.

Of course, these addresses aren't the only such example.  Every time wright has provided strongly falsifiable proof that he's Satoshi people have been able to falsify it.  The only claims he's made that haven't been falsified are things that are inherently unfalsifiable-- like his bare assertion or claims of key signing demos where wright controlled all the involved computers.   Even some of his "handwritten" notes which you'd think would be unfalsifiable turned out to contain references and terminology that didn't exist until later.

What amuses me is that Craig Wright is an awful coder which should have automatically shown that he wasn't Satoshi Nakamoto. Only a genius (like Hal Finney) could have written the whitepaper and made the original code. Craig Wright is some loser with a collegiate level understanding of coding.

This is going to be used for fud to every altcoin which they can constantly attack. All they need is media and still can manipulate the market thru it including BTC. Looks like the government will be on his side too.


His coding capability I guess wasn't the point of it, It was sort of his idea and partnership for creating BTC which was said by Kurt Wuckert recently who is an advocate of the BSV. CSW did have some alliance even when he is obviously can't code well and can't prove he is Satoshi.

If Craig Wright holds as much BSV as he claims to have in BTC, he should indeed, feel relieved to pay $100 million.

There Was No ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ Lawsuit
Depending on what you read, you might get the real story, or ... not.
https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/12/08/there-was-no-satoshi-nakamoto-lawsuit/ (https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/12/08/there-was-no-satoshi-nakamoto-lawsuit/)

he doesnt need to pay that.
the damages are for CSW to, in practical terms pay himself.
basically human CSW has to pay $100m to corporation company name, owned by CSW $100m.

-$100m out +$100m in = $0
all he has to do is from his corporate company letterhead tell the court the payment is satisfied and settled. thats it.
after all he is not going to argue with himself that he didnt pay himself, and try to sue himself..

If he really is Satoshi Nakamoto, he shouldn't have bothered to go to the court to win some bitcoins, because he can easily control bitcoins which if they are created automatically he knows the flow and how to acquire bitcoins. But that's just my guess, maybe there are things that are more complicated so that Satoshi Nakamoto needs to be present at the trial.

Why he waited for long time just to claim that he's the real creator? Is that because bitcoin nowadays is so expensive and very successful invention? Well that man wants a rewards probably. Lol  just imagine satoshi nakamoto is known from japan. But craig wright clearly not from asian countries.  :D

It's really not that complicated. If you want to prove you own Bitcoins, simply sign a message with the private key. Done. You're verified to be the owner. Even a crypto novice knows how to sign a message or can google it.

Claiming to own coins by promulgating fake news articles to the media only establishes one as a fraud and an ignoramus. CW is both, in spades.

Now, that would be the most exciting thing to watch. Since he is already declared the winner for the Bitcoin on the question then the whole cryptocurrency industry is gonna be watching when he will be moving the BTC into another wallet so he can be donating the same to charity. Or will this be another joke coming from Mr. Craig Wright...whom I believe is WRONG from the very start? Anyway, we have only one thing that we should be thankful for this man: free entertainment!

thte coins were never in dispute or question. both sides were not arguing about coins.
the court case was about a company set up in 2013. where both parties did not dispute the "said" collateral.

what CSW won was the company name.. nothing more.

he does not ned to prove anything to the court. not even any settlement via coin movements.
CSW as a person has to pay CSW the company owner $100m(pay himself -150+150=0). which CSW the company owner just needs to write a company letter to the judge saying "payment received, no dispute" and thats it.

this case is nothing to do with coins. and CSW as a scammer he is, knows this. and will instead pretend it has to do with the coins and pretend that the next entertaining "no dispute" settlement of court ordered damages being paid is further proof of collateral holding(facepalm)

but again none of this proves ownership of coins. nor has actually in reality ever been about proving ownership of coins.
the reality is he doesnt own the coins. its all just drama and fakery and scammy manipulation for media press and speculation

if he can prove to be satoshi then yes the coins/bitcoin inside Satoshi wallet expected to be moving soon? and why need proving Himself when he can just move the coins and everything will believe him.
and why not also logged in to his account here in forum? he can easily ask theymos of His ownership and sure His account will be unlocked.
+1 here lol, like what my point also .

This Fake-toshi drama has been there for years already. He spent millions proving to the court that he is Satoshi where in fact he really isn't Satoshi. Well, he made us laughed a bit though :).
There is only one very simple way for him to prove that he really is Satoshi. Sign a message of the address where a million Bitcoin is stored. That's it.

Ok he won at the court. Does it prove that he is Satoshi. Do we believe that he really is Satoshi now? Do you think people who is in crypto for quite some time will believe that this shitty scammer is Satoshi? Maybe those newbies will believe but for others not a single chance. Proving in the court and winning isn't enough to prove that he is the real Satoshi. He can just claim it, I can just claim it too without spending any penny, a beggar can claim it, my dog can claim it and anybody can claim that we are Satoshi Nakamoto. Just sign a message where a million Bitcoin is stored and if he can do it then we will believe in him.

I know Miami court has given their verdict that Craig is the creator of bitcoin. Most surprisingly Craig has agreed to provide a huge sum of money to the family of Kleiman. But now it's interesting to see that whether he is able to access the stash that we believe belongs to Mr. Nakamoto.

Things have become very interesting now! The entire community should keep a close eye on the events. Unless Craig is able to access Satoshi's bitcoin stash, it means nothing to the community.

If my memory is good, Wright does plagiarism in his thesis and tried to claim as Bitcoin's founder and owner of Bitcoin's White paper. Do you trust him?

I believe he won't have access to satoshi's coins. Because very simply, he is not a real satoshi and he can not have access to it now but reasons are not because he lost private key or disk. It is just because he has never owned it.

guess you didnt research..
the court has not given a verdict that craig invented bitcoin.
the court has not given damages to the family of kleiman
craig does not have access to the stash

again lets correct it
the court has given a verdict that a 2013 company called W&K is not part of kleimans
      meaning its wrights.
the court has ordered craig(human) pay W&K(craig the business owner) $100m
the court does not need to see bank statements or block explorers to ensure damages are paid
the court only needs to receive a letter from W&K(craig) that W&K has settled the $100m and will not dispute the $100m

that is all

I feel sorry for the Judge's great grand children. Give me 5 minutes with faketoshi and I will ask 5 questions that only Satoshi and the ones he blessed with his kindness have the answers to...  of course  the proof of knowledge is there.

1- How is the name written and what does it REALLY mean.
2- why 144 blocks per day (not why 21 million coins)
3- Other than the famous  "chancellor on brink" message, how is the other secret message concealed?and what does it say?
4- why sekp256k1 and what does it represent on a bigger scale?

5- and last, did he really mine genesis block? And why was the highest difficulty target set  to 1d00ffff?

Well, I still don’t know whether he is Satoshi Nakamoto or not, but all this while he could have ended all these troubles by just moving the coins in the Satoshi’s wallet, that way he would have easily shut down everyone that is doubting him as the Satoshi Nakamoto.

How do we believe him that he is the one who created Bitcoin if he can’t prove it? He’s not the only that has claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto or the only one said to be, there have been other people who the world believed were Satoshi Nakamoto, and others who have claimed that they are. But at the end we still find out that they are not. He has been the only one that has kept persisting for long now. So I guess he just has to prove himself and that is it.

How could you possible know that the creator is from Asia? Is it just because of the name Satoshi Nakamoto? That's why you can automatically say that he/she is from Japan or somehow in the Asian countries. Don't forget the fact the we are pseudo-anonymous, so we can't just say which part of the world we are. That's just a vague reasoning you got there.
So @Ararbermas, is it safe to say that you're from the Middle East or somewhere in UAE? Lol.

I think that's not safe. But what's safe is, that Satoshi pre-released the Bitcoin draft 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System' at http://www.upload.ae/file/6157/ecash-pdf.html, a UAE issued domain name site.

Here is Satoshi's original email dated 22/Aug/2008

There's actually no need to put this on the court if he's the real satoshi. It's easy for him to prove that he's satoshi by just moving those million of bitcoins on his stash to prove everyone wrong that's doubting him. It's been years I guess since he's fighting for his stance of being the owner, the logic is just simple for proving it.

But there's no proof for that and I don't follow his cases that have to be brought up to the judge.

Nah, that's another lie of wrights.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bsv/comments/rc9iev/judge_bloom_has_already_seen_the_wk_operating/

oh dont worry i did not miss the LINDA thing. on paper Linda owns it. but we all know that the hands and brains of the operation is CSW. (typical shell company strategy)

craig does not owe Linda $100m physically.. and wont pay out money to her. she is just paper owner. but he has the company bank accounts. so as said its a paper acknowledgement of craig paying W&k. where craig in physical world transfers $0 to W&K, as its just paying himself ultimately.
all the court needs to see is W&K letterhead saying W&K are happy and settled and no longer in dispute. case closed.

its the whole reason why this case involving W&K was a debate between craig and klieman .. because W&K was a craig thing.. and linda wasnt fighting klieman, craig was.

(though in the background i think years ago craig paid ira to be a pretend adversary to start this court charade where ira was a paid friend, not enemy outside of court. just going through court motions for media hype. but this bracketed part is just my opinion)

"Upon review and consideration, the Court does not find a basis to disturb its prior conclusion from the August 2019 Order that Defendant has failed to present credible evidence that Ms. Wright was a member of W&K."

The court already saw Lynn's claim to have ownership and determined that it was a baseless forgery.  Just another fucking lie of wright's.