Again with the internet expert of law thing, aren't we?   Your arguments are falling apart before our eyes.

Stop lying in my face. If you submit documents under discovery, then you don't have to say anything extra. You do what you are told, no more, no less.

Craig submitted to the court everything that matched certain search criteria given by the judge. As a result, he had to submit papers that other people had forged to set him up. You are taking a wishful leap of faith interpreting it as if Craig himself forged them. Are you stupid in the head or something?

Evidence submitted to court is "nothing of substance" only if you remain willfully ignorant to what it means. You're not even trying. Every comment you write is just "No," followed by incomprehensible nonsense.

Don't you have anything better to do than troll this forum? Shouldn't you be busy building the new internet or uploading things to your blockchain?

Craig lies everywhere he does, kind of like you. I guess you learned from the best.

Based on the rule change, that post is now considered low value and can be reported.

I like this recent wave of correcting and forgiving past mistakes.

Ok, I've a question for anybody in this thread who might have come across a suitable answer on the topic during this court process. I'm not claiming to be the first person to spot this (I think that kudos goes to this Redditor from 3 years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4htw3t/how_to_steal_54_millions_of_dollar_from_the/ )

Dave Kleiman is listed in the UK's Companies House database as having been an officer of one of CSW's UK companes, namely, C01N LTD, (Originally called 'Design By Human Ltd' at incorporation in 2012, then changed to 'Moving Forward In Business Ltd in October 2013, before finally being renamed again, as 'C01N LTD' on January 2014)



We can see he is listed as having been appointed shortly after it's incorporation (when it was called 'Design By Human Ltd') and resigned as at the date of his death in April 2013



But, here's the thing, Dave Kleiman was appointed, and subsequently resigned, long after his death using back-dated dates of appointment and resignation documents filed in April 2014








Now, while filing back-dated appointment/resignation forms isn't that out of the ordinary, it is particularly questionable if it involves the deceased. Without there being supporting legal documentation proving that the deceased had previously accepted their appointment as an officer of a company, it runs the risk of looking like a fraudulent filing.

The issue here is:



Is there evidence that Dave Kleiman actually consented to act as director of this company back when it was still called 'Design By Human Ltd'? Evidence outside of the usual sloppy forgeries Faketoshi furnishes courtrooms with, of course.

I wonder what are the consequences of the trial by Dave Klieman's brother for 1/3 of a Billion Dollars.

Unsure that if he loses, he will not go to a country without extradition and suffer nothing for his lies.

Also, if he was in a Satoshi Group with Dave Kleinman and Hal Finney and himself, and as a result is the last man standing,

he likely would know that the inventor(s) of Bitcoin are indeed dead, in that both the other 2 men have passed away.

I suspect he will lose the case, continue to state he has no access to the coins till 2020 and beyond, and go to a country

where he can't be extradited on a 'civil manner' like this. Thus, he will declare 'Victory' and FML if Bitcoin SV won't go up another 33%

because from what I can tell from this whole farce is humans are idiots and will believe anybody almost.

Brad

Stop repeating the same rhetoric! You keep talking about those MtGox stolen bitcoins which is a complete fabrication. It's disgusting that you spread an altered version of the document which has the MtGox address added to it and you keep saying that it is a legitimate document.

the hackers are the scammers - not Satoshi
But now the hackers got triggerd and only can REACT

Who made and still makes the pace?

That's really bad, but the US has a continual problem with that. Neither of the previous presidents did any better.


I don't know what this is supposed to show.


"Best labor market since 1969 with low unemployment, first president to have GDP consistently higher than 3%, President Barack Obama was only the president to fail to achieve one year of 3% GDP growth."

https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/jvff9.png

Another gem, proving what level of maturity we are really having here:



Do your own thinking. One side has educated professionals such as myself, the other side resorts to childish name-calling and emotion-driven moderation practices 

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me.  It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in.  If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.  If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version.  This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.

I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.

That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary.

Since 2007.  At some point I became convinced there was a way to do this without any trust required at all and couldn't resist to keep thinking about it.  Much more of the work was designing than coding.

Fortunately, so far all the issues raised have been things I previously considered and planned for.

There is no one even close to Craig Wright when it comes to knowing the technical side of BitCoin. Only Satoshi Nakamoto himself would be so knowledgeable. You can't say this about identity thieves. Knowledge is ultimately what filters out imposters. Craig knows and can explain technical intricacies about BitCoin that only the creator would know.

If you thought wright couldn't top the last dozen absurd lies and idiotic baseless legal threats he's issued... you have a surprise in store for you:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200210203809/https://medium.com/@craig_10243/ccbe22f2637e

He is now claiming his stole identity entitles him to complete ownership of the Bitcoin system.

As the sole creator of bitcoin, I own full rights to the bitcoin registry.

The system within bitcoin was launched with the full issue of all tokens. At its creation, bitcoin was formulated as a system with a set number of individual tokens defined as approximately 21 million bitcoin where each bitcoin is an arbitrary verbal representation of 100 million individual and indivisible tokens.

Bitcoin has an issuer. In January 2009, as director of companies I created in multiple jurisdictions, I issued 21 million bitcoin where each individual bitcoin is an indivisible set of 100 million tokens.

On August 15 2010, it was discovered that block 74638 contained a transaction that created over 184 billion bitcoins for two different addresses. This was possible because the code used for checking transactions before including them in a block didn't account for the case of outputs so large that they overflowed when summed. A new version was published within a few hours of the discovery. The block chain had to be forked. Although many unpatched nodes continued to build on the "bad" block chain, the "good" block chain overtook it at a block height of 74691. The bad transaction no longer exists for people using the longest chain.

Unless there is something that I missed here, I doubt that Craig Wright has access to the 1Feex private key.  Let’s lather up with falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, and shave down the following with Occam’s Razor:

• To damn all the more by understatement, CSW has a known history (!) of claiming possession of private keys which, in fact, he does not possess.  What evidence do we have that his 1Fee private key isn’t just like the Tulip briefcase-load of Satoshi private keys being handled by an action-movie secret-agent courier?
• Anybody who actually stole almost EIGHTY THOUSAND BITCOINS (!) should damn well know to never associate himself with that his stash of loot in a document filed with a court (!!).  Would a bank robber point to his stolen sacks of cash in a court filing?
• To my knowledge, there is no evidence that CSW has any advanced hacking skills (or even a competent understanding of how Bitcoin works).  Is there any evidence that he is concealing a keen technical intelligence behind his shrewd techno-clown showman swindle?
• The 1Feex address is a longtime popular mystery, and most people have no idea what it is (2014-12-28:  The only mention of “Gox” in that four-page thread, with no mention of the hack:  “The 1Fee address is probably an MT Gox address although there is no direct evidence, just circumstantial.”).  Yes, I know of later-discussed evidence in various places.  But try web-searching the address by itself, with no mention of Gox; you will find endless pages of social media speculation and fantasy completely unrelated to Mt. Gox.
  
  CSW could have simply picked that address the way almost everybody else finds it:  Looking at the richlists.  Faketoshi Classic:  “Hey, I need me something to claim as collateral... hmmm, let’s see:  What Bitcoin address has lots of money just sitting there?”
• Most lawyers and most courts are ignorant of technology—and you must multiply that factor a thousandfold for anything pertaining to Bitcoin in 2013!  It would be much easier to fool them than to fool (or “fool”) Gavin; and it’s unlikely that anybody would even keep an eye on the address to see if funds moved later.  A career scammer would know this.  It is just the type of human vulnerability that he exploits daily.
• If, as I suspect, Faketoshi may be on a leash being held by whomever I suspect to have compromised Gavin, “whoever” wants efficient, covert means to disrupt Bitcoin.  And if you want to shave away “whomever”, just consider that greedy, Bitcoin-hating scammer CSW has probably heard of a “short”.
  
  Regardless of the difficulty that the 1Fee possessor may have in recovering spendable money from it, anybody with private key to that address could wreak at least short-term havoc on the Bitcoin market—not merely in terms of the direct economic effect of “only” eighty thousand bitcoins, but much moreso through the FUD “news” headlines that could be generated.  Nuff said?
  
  Whereas a real blackhat would may not want to disrupt the Bitcoin market that way, if he anyway has plenty of spending money from other hacks.  Why?  For better or for worse, the “you shall protect Bitcoin” aspect of the Social Phenomenon applies to blackhats, too—at least to some degree.  I think to myself, if I were an intelligent blackhat acting only from rational self-interest, what would I do with 1Fee?  Probably more or less sit on it as my cold-stored nest egg and proof of ultimate pwnage, as I merrily spend all the other bitcoins that I have stolen in smaller, more easily-laundered amounts.  What?  Do I want to FUD the market for the money that I enjoy stealing and spending?  Lulz, I’m rolling in gold—I will not smack the goose that lays the golden eggs.

That being said, the question of whether or not Faketoshi possesses the 1Fee key is almost irrelevant at this particular moment if he claimed possession of stolen property in a court filing.  Either he essentially confessed to interesting crimes or, more likely, he committed a whole bundle of other interesting crimes rippling outward from lies told to a court.  In terms of his fate, the question of whether or not he actually possesses said property is thus tantamount to asking if he shot himself in his left foot, or shot himself in his right foot.

Of course, that question is much more interesting to any Gox creditors; but that is a separate issue, and unlikely to be a big issue due to the unlikelihood that he actually has a private key which he may have only “proved” to his lawyer similarly to how he “proved” a Satoshi key to Gavin.

---

Evidence establishing 99% certainty?  I doubt it, but I want to see it proved if it’s true.  Instant “game over” for Faketoshi, Nchain, and probably a few other bad characters closely associated with him.  Maybe also even a bit more recovery for people who got Goxed.  So... proof?  (Preferably in a concise link to/quote of more discussion elsewhere.)

---

I will file that under “maximum lulz”:  Obviously, his defence must be to prove that he deceived a court in 2013!  Any which way it plays out, it would be mighty tough for people with badges to ignore.

“O, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.”
   — Sir Walter Scott

You are clearly the one with brain damage here as you are unable to comprehend that if the judge orders you to provide documents matching certain criteria, then you have to follow that order regardless whether the documents are forgeries or not.

What is worse, you assume there to be "hacking" which I never mentioned. You don't need to hack into a company if you are already employed by the company.

The documents were found from compromised computers. That alone is enough to discard them as evidence. Get your brain damage fixed and then let's talk.


So you do agree now, that a forged forgery in someone else's name does not make that someone else guilty of forging?

ANSWER THE QUESTION. YES OR NO.

You seem to be silently ignoring this important piece so I just want to have it established. So we would not have to return to this idiocy.

To answer your question regarding proof that CSW is Satoshi. Yes, I know for a fact, that Craig Wright is the sole creator of BitCoin and the person behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. I have empirical evidence. I have already stated it. How many times must I repeat it? Empirical evidence is the best kind of evidence and that's why I can say with 100% certainty that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.