Craig Wright recognised by US Govt as Satoshi, author of white paper

[MysteryMiner]

The whitepaper now have brown skid mark over it. Craig Wright is asshole.

[1713542102]

1713542102

[1713542102]

1713542102

[1713542102]

1713542102

[1713542102]

1713542102

[1713542102]

1713542102

[ðºÞæ]

Dr. Craig has now been issued a fully vetted certificate of copyright by US Government Copyright office.
This can not be contested unless you have standing so this is now firm.
Dr. Craig has not applied today, he did that months back.
Bitcoin ©
Most likely he will show it to the world at the CoinGeek Scaling Conference in Toronto
He also changed Nationality he denounced Australia Citizenship and is now Antigua and Barbuda Citizen .
How long can Roger Ver hold on to Bitcoin.com, count in hours or days.

[BQ]

This is not recognising him as Satoshi, it's the step before (=anyone can reach this step), isn't that right?

[Adriano2010]

Even if they recognize as Satoshi, he is not, why he just don't sign a message from first bitcoin address where is mined 50 bitcoin to proove he is Satoshi? If he can't do this then he is not Satoshi.

[pushups44]

Dr. Craig has now been issued a fully vetted certificate of copyright by US Government Copyright office.
This can not be contested unless you have standing so this is now firm.
Dr. Craig has not applied today, he did that months back.
Bitcoin ©
Most likely he will show it to the world at the CoinGeek Scaling Conference in Toronto
He also changed Nationality he denounced Australia Citizenship and is now Antigua and Barbuda Citizen .
How long can Roger Ver hold on to Bitcoin.com, count in hours or days.

Filing a copyright registration is not the same as proving ownership. It only sets a potential basis for a lawsuit, so CSW still has to prove he's Satoshi in the way the community has demanded.

[BitHodler]

Such a non event. It was an attempt to have BSV pump hard with capital coming from Calvin and a bunch of other mentally challenged scammers. It went up around 80% where these scammers bought their own coins on the way up.

The whitepaper now have brown skid mark over it. Craig Wright is asshole.

I think Craig and Roger have done a lot together to have people (unfortunately) somewhat meme the Bitcoin white paper with how they constantly refer to it and see it as the absolute definition of Bitcoin.

It's sad to see that there is so much drama going on here, which is completely different when it comes to altcoins. Ethereum for example doesn't have to deal with this nonsense despite the large number of competing platforms.

[ðºÞæ]

Dr. Craig has now been issued a fully vetted certificate of copyright by US Government Copyright office.
This can not be contested unless you have standing so this is now firm.
Dr. Craig has not applied today, he did that months back.
Bitcoin ©
Most likely he will show it to the world at the CoinGeek Scaling Conference in Toronto
He also changed Nationality he denounced Australia Citizenship and is now Antigua and Barbuda Citizen .
How long can Roger Ver hold on to Bitcoin.com, count in hours or days.

Filing a copyright registration is not the same as proving ownership. It only sets a potential basis for a lawsuit, so CSW still has to prove he's Satoshi in the way the community has demanded.

Bitcoin ©
Dr. Craig has now been issued a fully vetted certificate of copyright by US Government Copyright office.
This can not be contested unless you have standing so this is now firm.
Most likely he will show it to the world at the CoinGeek Scaling Conference in Toronto

[o_e_l_e_o]

Dr. Craig has now been issued a fully vetted certificate of copyright by US Government Copyright office.
This can not be contested unless you have standing so this is now firm.

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=3&ti=1,3&Search%5FArg=equity%20based&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=jI9fB_21cgfzdEN5fsuVSd0vjoX2&SEQ=20190521153630&SID=2
https://archive.is/bYO4v

Ronald Keala Kua Maria was issued with a fully vetted certificate of copyright 3 years ago, in 2016. No one has contested this, so it must be firm. CSW is clearly infringing on the copyright of the one true Satoshi, RKKM.

Or maybe, just maybe, this whole stupid publicity stunt he has pulled is completely meaningless.

[takngantuk]

https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-creator-craig-s-wright-satoshi-nakamoto-granted-us-copyright-registrations-for-bitcoin-white-paper-and-code/

implications for Bitcoin?

Is this a new conspiracy? Come on, from the start, everyone here knew that Craig Wright was not satoshi. so even if they do this, I don't think it will change anything here.

[pushups44]

Dr. Craig has now been issued a fully vetted certificate of copyright by US Government Copyright office.
This can not be contested unless you have standing so this is now firm.
Dr. Craig has not applied today, he did that months back.
Bitcoin ©
Most likely he will show it to the world at the CoinGeek Scaling Conference in Toronto
He also changed Nationality he denounced Australia Citizenship and is now Antigua and Barbuda Citizen .
How long can Roger Ver hold on to Bitcoin.com, count in hours or days.

Filing a copyright registration is not the same as proving ownership. It only sets a potential basis for a lawsuit, so CSW still has to prove he's Satoshi in the way the community has demanded.

Bitcoin ©
Dr. Craig has now been issued a fully vetted certificate of copyright by US Government Copyright office.
This can not be contested unless you have standing so this is now firm.
Most likely he will show it to the world at the CoinGeek Scaling Conference in Toronto

This is from the government website:

"An application contains three essential elements: a completed application form, a nonrefundable filing fee, and a nonreturnable deposit—
that is, a copy or copies of the work being registered and 'deposited' with the Copyright Office."

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

Once again, ANYONE could have registered the bitcoin whitepaper according to the government website.

[ðºÞæ]

Dr. Craig has now been issued a fully vetted certificate of copyright by US Government Copyright office.
This can not be contested unless you have standing so this is now firm.

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=3&ti=1,3&Search%5FArg=equity%20based&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=jI9fB_21cgfzdEN5fsuVSd0vjoX2&SEQ=20190521153630&SID=2

Ronald Keala Kua Maria was issued with a fully vetted certificate of copyright 3 years ago, in 2016. No one has contested this, so it must be firm. CSW is clearly infringing on the copyright of the one true Satoshi, RKKM.

Or maybe, just maybe, this whole stupid publicity stunt he has pulled is completely meaningless.

Bitcoin was copyrighted from whitepaper and code version 0.1
A copyright can be maintained under a pseudonym.


Here is applications only
https://cryptobriefing.com/us-grants-craig-wright-copyright-on-original-bitcoin-whitepaper/

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=6&ti=1,6&Search_Arg=bitcoin&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=8YeSxz-Mt2xTN_qdmo2gMEQzIEOsU&SEQ=20190521122755&SID=1

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=8&ti=1,8&Search_Arg=bitcoin&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=8YeSxz-Mt2xTN_qdmo2gMEQzIEOsU&SEQ=20190521122755&SID=1

[squatter]

This is pretty hilarious. Does he really believe this will hold up in court?

The code was released under MIT license. Hilariously, Wright seems very confused about how this works in practice:

Wright claims that other blockchains besides his chosen implementation of Bitcoin, Bitcoin SV, will have to pay for the privilege of using the codebase.

As Jerry Brito from CoinCenter points out, these claims "have almost zero legal weight." It's sad that people will have to spend time and money to fight these frivolous claims in court, though, if he tries to exercise any rights under copyright law.

Notably, very little (if any) of the original codebase even exists in the current client anymore.

[Nolimitz84]

I'm very glad that many speak out against Craig Wright.One single detail that I don't believe he created bitcoin is that he was silent for 10 years.The question is why?

[o_e_l_e_o]

Bitcoin was copyrighted from whitepaper and code version 0.1
A copyright can be maintained under a pseudonym.

And I've shown you a copyright registration from someone else from 3 years ago, exactly the same as CSW's one, claiming the exact same thing that CSW is claiming. What is it exactly that makes the other one false but CSW's true, considering they have both presented the exact same amount of corroborating evidence - i.e. none at all?

[Ucy]

I strongly believe numerous Blockchain alternatives can effectively replace Blockchain ...just incase he ends up patenting it to prevent people from building brand new blockhains and  running it in globally without limits

 Hope people are aware that there are lots of cryptocurrencies that aren't built on Blockchain?
Blockchain is just good for decentralizing currencies and transactions.
Bitcoin could easily be migrated to other blockchain alternatives... I believe this is possible

We will continue to host files on stuff like freenet, ipfs  while bitcoin and its transactions are move to other blockchain alternatives

[ðºÞæ]

Bitcoin was copyrighted from whitepaper and code version 0.1
A copyright can be maintained under a pseudonym.

And I've shown you a copyright registration from someone else from 3 years ago, exactly the same as CSW's one, claiming the exact same thing that CSW is claiming. What is it exactly that makes the other one false but CSW's true, considering they have both presented the exact same amount of corroborating evidence - i.e. none at all?

MtGox had bitcoin copyrighted in 2011, did anyone  until now enforce it, no.
Next few weeks Roger Ver will find out if he can hold on to Bitcoin.com

[franky1]

The code was released under MIT license. Hilariously, Wright seems very confused about how this works in practice:

but craig with his name on a certificate in relation to the 2008 whitepaper could claim that he created bitcoin under closed source in 2008 and that MIT infringed him. thus try suing MIT, as well as suing whoever he pleases.
yea theres chances he cant win. but in may cases the people getting sued end up 'settling' just to save money.
thats how the world works these days. fake a claim get them to pay you a % early on to just make you go away

[pushups44]

Bitcoin was copyrighted from whitepaper and code version 0.1
A copyright can be maintained under a pseudonym.

And I've shown you a copyright registration from someone else from 3 years ago, exactly the same as CSW's one, claiming the exact same thing that CSW is claiming. What is it exactly that makes the other one false but CSW's true, considering they have both presented the exact same amount of corroborating evidence - i.e. none at all?

MtGox had bitcoin copyrighted in 2011, did anyone  until now enforce it, no.
Next few weeks Roger Ver will find out if he can hold on to Bitcoin.com

You're deliberately spreading disinformation here. A claim on Bitcoin.com would require a lawsuit most likely, so there's no way the issue would be resolved in "weeks." Lawsuits typically take years, especially over a subject this complex.

[squatter]

The code was released under MIT license. Hilariously, Wright seems very confused about how this works in practice:

but craig with his name on a certificate in relation to the 2008 whitepaper could claim that he created bitcoin under closed source in 2008 and that MIT infringed him. thus try suing MIT, as well as suing whoever he pleases.

MIT the entity has nothing to do with it. They are just named for the permissive free software license that originated there.

Satoshi published the original code under the MIT license here. This is what the license entails:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

I don't see how Craig has any leg to stand on, legally. I'm also fairly sure that Craig isn't the first to attempt a copyright claim like this.

[pushups44]

The code was released under MIT license. Hilariously, Wright seems very confused about how this works in practice:

but craig with his name on a certificate in relation to the 2008 whitepaper could claim that he created bitcoin under closed source in 2008 and that MIT infringed him. thus try suing MIT, as well as suing whoever he pleases.

MIT the entity has nothing to do with it. They are just named for the permissive free software license that originated there.

Satoshi published the original code under the MIT license here. This is what the license entails:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

I don't see how Craig has any leg to stand on, legally. I'm also fairly sure that Craig isn't the first to attempt a copyright claim like this.

I suspect disinformation is being passed by people trying to pump bitcoin cash SV. It's really fishy how stuff is being made up on the fly and evidence continually ignored while the same propaganda is pushed. Again, what is the motive of this disinformation?