Kleiman v. Wright case 6/28/19 (show cause) hearing likely open... follow 'live'

[asche]

Supposedly he destroyed all the keys to the publicly known coins, and had Dave split the rest with anonymous people and have them send the keys once the tulip trust expired or something like that.

So instead of sending all these coins to a random public address and keeping the private keys to prove ownership, he destroyed these.

That makes so much sense.

I wonder if he actually believes he can pull this off...

[BitcoinFX]

I cannot begin to describe (although I most certainly shall), the dire inconsistencies presented within the following article;

- https://coingeek.com/dr-craig-s-wright-appears-in-us-federal-court-testifies-he-is-satoshi-nakamoto/

Specifically this;

... "On the stand, Wright continued that the original Bitcoin did not use the concept of public addresses as people perceive them today; instead, it relied on public-private pairs, with the private keys needed to spend the coins. Today, people incorrectly perceive a public address similar to a bank account number, where coin holders accumulate Bitcoin and then spend from that address. The original Bitcoin system created by Wright was never meant to incorporate a system of reusable public addresses where people can see how much Bitcoin is accumulating in a single public address that is re-used; instead, a new key pair (and thus a new address) was intended to be created for every transaction in order to provide users a new privacy model. Wright testified that this is explained in the Bitcoin white paper (section 10, Privacy).

After Wright withdrew from the Bitcoin project, the public address on the Bitcoin ledger became incorrectly misunderstood and then misused by developers in what would become known as the Bitcoin Core (BTC) project. Thus, at the time Wright was mining Bitcoin for his company in 2009 and 2010 and under Wright’s original Bitcoin design, there was no need to keep the public addresses as people understand them now; instead, at the time, the seed or private keys were all that would be needed or stored.

Wright was requested to provide the public Bitcoin addresses that reportedly hold a significant amount of assets—possibly reaching into the billions of dollars. He testified in court that he’s more than willing to turn over the information if he could, but that the information necessary to generate the list of public addresses is locked in an encrypted file, with multiple keys protecting different layers of the file. At earliest, the first layers of the encrypted file cannot be opened until at least January 2020. Wright explained that the encrypted file contains the relevant seed and his proprietary algorithm that can generate the private keys for Bitcoin mined by his company in 2009 and 2010, which would allow him to generate the associated public keys and public addresses that most crypto fans are used to seeing today." ...

...

Firstly, I'm someone who genuinely mined Bitcoin (BTC) in early 2010. Proof is here (my own Signed and Verified 'old' wallet);

Verifying my (old) zero balance wallet address for blockchain research etc.,
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4630066

To the best of my knowledge, all Bitcoin wallet versions have always generated corresponding public and private key pairs for newly mined blocks.

When CPU mining in 2010, any new 50 BTC block found by the wallet (as also presented in my old wallet's TX ID's), would be automatically 'credited' to the new public key (public address) with the corresponding private key. That is how it works, obviously.

I mean come on! It's in the blockchain, starting with the Genesis Block, onwards ...

Block 0 (Genesis Block) ...
- https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block-height/0
- https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f
- https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab2127b7afdeda33b <<<<< TX ID
- https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa  <<<<< Public Address

Block 1
- https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block-height/1
- https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/00000000839a8e6886ab5951d76f411475428afc90947ee320161bbf18eb6048
- https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/0e3e2357e806b6cdb1f70b54c3a3a17b6714ee1f0e68bebb44a74b1efd512098
- https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX

Block 2
- https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block-height/2
- https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/000000006a625f06636b8bb6ac7b960a8d03705d1ace08b1a19da3fdcc99ddbd
- https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/9b0fc92260312ce44e74ef369f5c66bbb85848f2eddd5a7a1cde251e54ccfdd5
- https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1HLoD9E4SDFFPDiYfNYnkBLQ85Y51J3Zb1

Etc., etc.,

As the supposed creator of Bitcoin (BTC), to not have an exacting knowledge of precisely which blocks (let alone any or some blocks) that you did in fact mine is highly likely a total and complete fallacy.

At best: You didn't mine what you claim to have mined (i.e. someone else mined those blocks).

At worst: Not your keys, Not your coins.

We are still waiting for this proof. Thus far, we have only seen evidence to the contrary.

Note that the highlighted text is effectively asserting public key generation of the corresponding private keys for public addresses that are already in the blockchain. That appears to be convoluted and in terms of Bitcoin is most certainly ridiculous.

...

Furthermore ...

"How harmful would it be for the ecosystem if CW actually gains access to the nearly 1MM coins he and Kleiman mined in 2010?"
- https://twitter.com/KatieAnanina/status/1145063539138355201

"None of that actually happened. To the extent that CSW has pointed towards public addresses in support of his claims, they've been demonstrated to belong to other parties, and he probably just grabbed them from some misguided "rich" list of addresses. So, no risk whatsoever."
- https://twitter.com/jmcorgan/status/1145064562288287744

"There has been zero evidence that he owns any early keys. There has been a lot of evidence of faking documents and claiming addresses that don’t belong to him."
- https://twitter.com/girevik_/status/1145068705342038016

"No risk. CSW does not have the keys. Not your keys, not your coins."
- https://twitter.com/tipton/status/1145066513247952896
"Data not public = not science. Method not public = not science. Blockchain's a linked list. Only known useful application is Bitcoin. Language & Logic."

...

...

“Craig Wright is a Liar and A Fraud” Says Real Owner of Bitcoin Address Submitted by Wright
- https://news.bitcoin.com/craig-is-a-liar-early-adopter-proves-ownership-of-bitcoin-address-claimed-by-craig-wright/
- https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/craig-wright-is-a-liar-and-a-fraud-says-real-owner-of-bitcoin-address-submitted-by-wright/

Kleiman v Craig Wright: The bitcoins that never were
https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html

...

[asche]

Wright was requested to provide the public Bitcoin addresses that reportedly hold a significant amount of assets—possibly reaching into the billions of dollars. He testified in court that he’s more than willing to turn over the information if he could, but that the information necessary to generate the list of public addresses is locked in an encrypted file, with multiple keys protecting different layers of the file. At earliest, the first layers of the encrypted file cannot be opened until at least January 2020. Wright explained that the encrypted file contains the relevant seed and his proprietary algorithm that can generate the private keys for Bitcoin mined by his company in 2009 and 2010, which would allow him to generate the associated public keys and public addresses that most crypto fans are used to seeing today." ...[/i]

That's some really deep bullshit right here.

How did he fund these addresses in the first place if he didn't have the pub key?

This is getting really laughable. Are the guys in court that naive?!

[gentlemand]

This is getting really laughable. Are the guys in court that naive?!

I presume they're wondering who the fuck these people are and what the fuck they're all playing at. That goes for the Kleiman too. I wonder if there's been a bigger waste of time and effort in recent times than this crap.

[Theb]

Sounds like Craigh Wright is getting shred into pieces in the courtroom and he is clearly falling apart. Best possible outcome is that he will cry another time and retract all his statements and just admit to the real truth. The best thing about courtroom battles is that if the other side or even the judge caught you in a lie you know that you are one stop closer in losing this fight and one or two more breakdowns is all it needs for his mouth to slip in another lie.

[rdbase]

But if he gets sued by the Kleiman estate he wont have more money then those african countries he claimed he does during that conference saying it up on stage.
I think he was crying because the judge told him if he comes in with documents one more time he would have him arrested and put in cuffs. Or was it because now kleimans brother can sue him for $10billion dollars of the lost bitcoins?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-inventor-craig-wright-cries-193525942.html
or here
https://www.ccn.com/crypto/bitcoin-inventor-craig-wright-cries-in-court-amid-10-billion-crypto-lawsuit/2019/06/28/
All news media are covering this story as it does not end well for this guy and people do not care for him because of his arrogance.

[DaCryptoRaccoon]

https://twitter.com/matthewryancase/status/1117154785298223104

   Keep up the good work BitcoinFX

[BitcoinFX]

This is getting really laughable. Are the guys in court that naive?!

I presume they're wondering who the fuck these people are and what the fuck they're all playing at. That goes for the Kleiman too. I wonder if there's been a bigger waste of time and effort in recent times than this crap.

There are known IRC logs of HAL's and 'Satoshi' IP addresses ...

Whois Satoshi? Known Satoshi IP addresses? ...
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155191.msg51500942#msg51500942

One can seemingly be easily associated with a New Libertarian meeting hot spot via the Cypherpunk mailing list ...

HINT: None of which are remotely close to a cow shed in Bagnoo, Australia !

...

I'm supposed to be working on useful privacy, anonymity and circumvention things to help protect folks in this overreaching digital age and instead I too am consumed with these falsehoods and apparent patent trolls.

A long-term conspiracy to malign Bitcoin appears to be present. The Bitcoin world is full of 'high place liars', at the expense of others.

...

I'm this guy ...

Re: Welcome to the new Bitcoin forum!
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5.msg188#msg188

Do you readers know how many members of the media, press or researchers have tried to contact me or my account in the last 10 years ?

One, who just wanted to know about pizza's !

Do you know how many members of the media, press or researchers I would speak with about any of this now ?

That's right; zip, nil, none, nada, zero.

I mean come on!, I don't even know anything about Bitcoin anyway. EDIT: I've just possibly forgotten more than most might remember !

[figmentofmyass]

Sounds like Craigh Wright is getting shred into pieces in the courtroom and he is clearly falling apart. Best possible outcome is that he will cry another time and retract all his statements and just admit to the real truth.

oh wow, i thought stephen palley was just making some metaphor about crying. i can't believe the dude actually cried in court!

this is from coindesk:

Wright reportedly began to cry during this section of the hearing. He also “crawled into his lawyer’s arms after the testimony and bawled,” said thatcryptoguyyy, while discussing the case over twitter during a recess before Wright’s cross examination.

bahahahaha!

choice retweet of the day:

forgive the language but it's hard to understate how completely fucked this guy is.

i was so looking forward to the day when this guy would just start unraveling. we've finally arrived!

[Dreamchaser21]

I'm wondering about 1 thing.

What is his excuse for not being able to sign any message with satoshi's private keys? I mean it would be so easy to prove ownership he must have given a reason for that. But I couldn't find anything valid...

Because he’s not the real Satoshi and now facing a criminal case, well the table has turned around against him its now to know the truth. We have to forget about Craig when he reaches the jail. This is going to become the topic world wide, and Craig will soon seek for another sympathy. 

[BitcoinFX]

This is really getting 'interesting' (for want of a better phrase) ...

"Litigation is narrative. The narrative frame in the Wright case right now isn't whether he is Satoshi or if Kleiman is entitled to what he claims. It's whether Wright committed contempt and/or should be sanctioned. The hearing yesterday was about his litigation conduct."
- https://twitter.com/stephendpalley/status/1144937567256829953

"In order for Craig to "lose" the Kleinman case he must be Satoshi Nakamoto and have written the white paper and invented #Bitcoin. This fact seems to not be understood by Craig deniers who are also cheering for him to lose this case. Does this make them stupid?"
- https://twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1145130758664798209



"More strong evidence to add to the overwhelming evidence already public that #CraigisSatoshi. Anyone contesting this is involved in a scam of some sort that Craig would be against."
- https://twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1145009549407150080

"What ?" - SWIM

...

Seriously though. This now goes one of two ways, forgetting the Kleinman case, the crypto industry is somewhat at an impasse until this is all resolved IMHO. Either way these folks are effectively holding the crypto markets to 'ransom' and this is entirely wrong. This action / inaction is stifling development and progress within this space.

...

So, ...

Bitcoin ‘Inventor’ Craig Wright Claims He Can’t Access Coins in Court Testimony
- https://thebitcoinnews.com/bitcoin-inventor-craig-wright-claims-he-cant-access-coins-in-court-testimony/

Bloomberg: Craig Wright Does Not Have Access to Bitcoin Fortune
- https://cointelegraph.com/news/bloomberg-craig-wright-does-not-have-access-to-bitcoin-fortune
- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/self-proclaimed-bitcoin-inventor-says-fortune-inaccessible

If I were the judge, at this next juncture I'd be asking CSW to demonstrate exactly how, when and where the Bitcoin (BTC) Genesis block was created.

In fact, I'd go as far as to insist on a full demonstration and/or recreation of the event(s). Being witnessed by expert cryptographers ...

I mean, "Satoshi Nakamoto" can build (re-create) the Genesis Block, right ?  

...

https://twitter.com/matthewryancase/status/1117154785298223104

   Keep up the good work BitcoinFX

- https://youtu.be/YkADj0TPrJA



"Yes. Sure. We can wait, 6 days ..." - SWIM

- https://youtu.be/eY-eyZuW_Uk
"The possession of anything begins in the mind." - Bruce Lee

[nutildah]

"In order for Craig to "lose" the Kleinman case he must be Satoshi Nakamoto and have written the white paper and invented #Bitcoin. This fact seems to not be understood by Craig deniers who are also cheering for him to lose this case. Does this make them stupid?"
- https://twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1145130758664798209

I can't speak for others but I've understood this from the very beginning. A verdict against him insinuates that he may be Satoshi. He won't lose the lawsuit, but he could still lose in a juicy variety of other ways...

https://twitter.com/matthewryancase/status/1117154785298223104

   Keep up the good work BitcoinFX

- https://youtu.be/YkADj0TPrJA

You really deserve more praise for what you've managed to unveil thus far.

[DaCryptoRaccoon]

@ BitcoinFX.

This is true looking back at the 0.01v ALPHA it's clearly there in main.cpp under the //mapKeys

Code:

    CRITICAL_BLOCK(cs_mapKeys)
    {
        mapKeys[key.GetPubKey()] = key.GetPrivKey();
        mapPubKeys[Hash160(key.GetPubKey())] = key.GetPubKey();
    }
    return CWalletDB().WriteKey(key.GetPubKey(), key.GetPrivKey());

and //mapWallet sections

Code:

vector<unsigned char> GenerateNewKey()
{
    CKey key;
    key.MakeNewKey();
    if (!AddKey(key))
        throw runtime_error("GenerateNewKey() : AddKey failed\n");
    return key.GetPubKey();

This is the very first code base for bitcoin he is claiming it was not supposed to be part of it but it's in the ALPHA release what he is trying to do is bamboozle the court.

for a long time he claims things like  "the blockchain is the ultimate proof"   and " the ledger can't lie" & " We can check the blockchain"
Yet now he is trying to tell us he didn't want a ledger or publickeys or anyway to see the funds?

I hope he likes prison food

[figmentofmyass]

Seriously though. This now goes one of two ways, forgetting the Kleinman case, the crypto industry is somewhat at an impasse until this is all resolved IMHO. Either way these folks are effectively holding the crypto markets to 'ransom' and this is entirely wrong. This action / inaction is stifling development and progress within this space.

how is the industry at an impasse? this suit doesn't seem to affect any big industry players nor anyone remotely close to bitcoin development. what makes you think this is affecting the markets? the chart looks like typical bull market behavior to me.

the kleiman case is just a big spectacle and the market knows it.

[BitcoinFX]

Seriously though. This now goes one of two ways, forgetting the Kleinman case, the crypto industry is somewhat at an impasse until this is all resolved IMHO. Either way these folks are effectively holding the crypto markets to 'ransom' and this is entirely wrong. This action / inaction is stifling development and progress within this space.

how is the industry at an impasse? this suit doesn't seem to affect any big industry players nor anyone remotely close to bitcoin development. what makes you think this is affecting the markets? the chart looks like typical bull market behavior to me.

the kleiman case is just a big spectacle and the market knows it.

I trust that you are familiar with the current libel cases from CSW against members of the Bitcoin community and/or the patents being presented by CSW / nChain, as well as the potential ramifications of successfully enforcing these said patents?

Also consider the reason that both the BCH and the BSV forks exist is not just because of the block size debate, but also due to folks following CSW by proclaiming to be "Satoshi Nakamoto", although without providing tangible or definitive evidence (to date).

Forking a blockchain and trading it against its base is not Bitcoin, especially under seemingly false pretences.

Satoshi even made an original bitcointalk post describing forking Bitcoin as being problematic (will add it here when located).

[squatter]

I trust that you are familiar with the current libel cases from CSW against members of the Bitcoin community and/or the patents being presented by CSW / nChain, as well as the potential ramifications of successfully enforcing these said patents?

I was under the impression that none of these are serious legal threats. I've only been following the Craig Wright saga very loosely, but I recall seeing some legal analysis suggesting his suits were frivolous.

As for the patents, what do you think he'll accomplish?

[BitcoinFX]

@ BitcoinFX.

This is true looking back at the 0.01v ALPHA it's clearly there in main.cpp under the //mapKeys

Code:

    CRITICAL_BLOCK(cs_mapKeys)
    {
        mapKeys[key.GetPubKey()] = key.GetPrivKey();
        mapPubKeys[Hash160(key.GetPubKey())] = key.GetPubKey();
    }
    return CWalletDB().WriteKey(key.GetPubKey(), key.GetPrivKey());

and //mapWallet sections

Code:

vector<unsigned char> GenerateNewKey()
{
    CKey key;
    key.MakeNewKey();
    if (!AddKey(key))
        throw runtime_error("GenerateNewKey() : AddKey failed\n");
    return key.GetPubKey();

This is the very first code base for bitcoin he is claiming it was not supposed to be part of it but it's in the ALPHA release what he is trying to do is bamboozle the court.

for a long time he claims things like  "the blockchain is the ultimate proof"   and " the ledger can't lie" & " We can check the blockchain"
Yet now he is trying to tell us he didn't want a ledger or publickeys or anyway to see the funds?

I hope he likes prison food

+ MERIT

Lets revisit that ...

... "Wright was requested to provide the public Bitcoin addresses that reportedly hold a significant amount of assets—possibly reaching into the billions of dollars. He testified in court that he’s more than willing to turn over the information if he could, but that the information necessary to generate the list of public addresses is locked in an encrypted file, with multiple keys protecting different layers of the file. At earliest, the first layers of the encrypted file cannot be opened until at least January 2020. Wright explained that the encrypted file contains the relevant seed and his proprietary algorithm that can generate the private keys for Bitcoin mined by his company in 2009 and 2010, which would allow him to generate the associated public keys and public addresses that most crypto fans are used to seeing today." ...

To clarify (in Bitcoin);

Public Keys are Public Addresses.

Said "proprietary algorithm" could be used to spend anyone's bitcoin's ... i.e. it's most likely total BS.

[BitcoinFX]

I trust that you are familiar with the current libel cases from CSW against members of the Bitcoin community and/or the patents being presented by CSW / nChain, as well as the potential ramifications of successfully enforcing these said patents?

I was under the impression that none of these are serious legal threats. I've only been following the Craig Wright saga very loosely, but I recall seeing some legal analysis suggesting his suits were frivolous.

As for the patents, what do you think he'll accomplish?

Correct for the main part.

Re: patents ...

I'm not a lawyer, although in certain responses, instances or jurisdiction's perhaps absolutely nothing or potentially total chaos.

The irony is that under certain enforcement it perhaps won't even matter if he is Satoshi Nakamoto or not. In theory nChain could persist without CSW, for example.

It is however a hideous move against Bitcoin, being originally released as Open Source software/code under the MIT license and being continually maintained/developed (by others) on that basis for the last 10 or so years.

Patent trolls are patent trolls. Time will tell.

[BitcoinFX]

Currently looking at CSW's claims in regards to leaving Bitcoin because of Silk Road etc.,

Here is a recent post of mine that was deleted from the moderated BSV thread in the alt. boards of this forum ...

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Reasons why Satoshi left

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=175.0

... Sirius, Theymos and others didn t.

 

TBH that thread is one of the reasons I initially left this forum and Bitcoin (returning in 2013).

I don't know if that thread is a reason the real Satoshi left. However, forums are places for open (and private) discussions concerning many subject topics, hence the reason why forums (or threads) should not be used to help spread 'false' narratives and/or mis-information!

Note that I did not post anything in that thread and neither did the 'Satoshi' forum account either.

The thread originator is this guy ...
- https://www.askgamblers.com/forum/topic/3057-dragons-tale-an-introduction/
- https://bensonsamuel.com/tag/andrew-tepper/

~ Who potentially owes people (including myself) a lot of money (bitcoin) for running a then unlicensed?!? and untested ('live' in-development / play-testing), gambling environment with highly questionable (unprovable!?!) odds, whilst clearly presenting a more dubious sense of morality here ... etc., ?!?

I cannot speak for Sirius, Theymos and others posting in that thread (Gavin Andresen included!).

Moreover though, two wrongs don't make a right!

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5148607.0
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4630066.msg49823597#msg49823597

P.S. I only do truth, I have nothing to hide!

P.P.S. If CSW ever 'proves' he is/was one of Satoshi he/they (and/or) his companies are also going to potentially be owing myself (and many others) a lot of money (bitcoin).

Wondering if anyone knows of any links (even tenuous) between this fellow, CSW and/or Calvin Ayre ?

Basically, it seems quite remarkable to myself that DT was available so soon after Bitcoin's release.

[BitcoinFX]

"Part 1. Cryptography Mailing List https://bit.ly/2RkaSZK  > 8 Jan 2009 - Satoshi announces Bitcoin v0.1 > 19 Jan 2009 - Stefan Kelm posts an article which happens to mention Craig Wright and David Kleiman in relation to a book they co-wrote > 20 Jan 2009 - David responds"
- https://twitter.com/jimmy007forsure/status/1141305547158724608

"Part 2. What are the odds? > David Kleiman was not a regular poster on the list. > Craig Wright is mentioned in the article > David alerts Craig and lets him know there is an article on the list that mentions their names. > Craig has a look. He notices Bitcoin!"
- https://twitter.com/jimmy007forsure/status/1141305556906364928

Part 3. Craig meets Bitcoin for the first time? > Only 12 days separate Bitcoin v0.1, DK and CSW being mentioned in a random post. > Bit uncanny, right? > Is this first time CSW & DK are introduced to Bitcoin?
- https://twitter.com/jimmy007forsure/status/1141305574476304386

"Part 4. Dave's activity on the Cryptography mailing list This is all I could find, just 6 posts IMO: Dave wasn't on the list that day because of the release of Bitcoin v0.1 He was there because a colleague alerted him to the post by Stefan and he in turn alerted Craig."
- https://twitter.com/jimmy007forsure/status/1141312642369241088

- https://twitter.com/zndtoshi/status/1141793842284433410    

 

...

Plot thickens !?! ...

"Cryptoloc - a document and data storage system based on cryptographic proof - Craig Wright was involved, he is on the patent Securit-e-doc - a document and data storage system based on cryptographic proof - Dave Kleiman was involved Why is Craig Wright not taking about this?"
- https://twitter.com/jimmy007forsure/status/1145109694198898689

"I don't think Craig had much to do with the design of Cryptoloc, and I suspect it's based upon Securit-e-doc. I suspect DK helped Craig design it and Craig may even still owe DK for services rendered"
- https://twitter.com/jimmy007forsure/status/1145118194195034112