So, you want to get sued by a scammer?

[gmaxwell]

We Are All Satoshi

Except for Craig S. Wright.

Craig Wright definitely is not, but he would really like everyone to believe he is.

Satoshi Nakamoto authored the Bitcoin Whitepaper with the intention that it be shared widely, and Craig Wright’s takedown notices are fraudulent, but since he is a litigious jerk who has bankrupted people with his fraudulent legal claims in court, it is sometimes a wise strategic choice to avoid provoking him into suing, which is expensive and disruptive to a defendant even when they ultimately win.

But you might be in a good position to host this paper that Craig Wright so desperately wants taken down and kept under his exclusive control. And you might want to give notice to his attorneys, just to let them know.  Below is an example notice you can send to his attornies.

Warning: sending this makes you considerably more likely to become the target of a lawsuit by Craig Wright. You should think about whether you are prepared to be in that position before sending this letter.

(This is absolutely, positively, not legal advice, and you are strongly encouraged to consult with your own attorney.)

To: Simon Cohen <Simon.Cohen@ontier.co.uk>
Cc: Paul Ferguson <paul.ferguson@ontier.co.uk>

Mr. Cohen,

I have recently become aware that the firm of Ontier LLP has been sending notices on behalf of Craig S. Wright to parties hosting “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” (the “Bitcoin Whitepaper”), alleging that Mr. Wright is the rightful copyright holder of the Bitcoin Whitepaper and that further distribution is an infringement of Wright’s exclusive rights.

I believe this to be a fraudulent misrepresentation of both the authorship of the paper and of its licensing status for many reasons, including but not limited to the following:

    • The Bitcoin Whitepaper was released into the public domain upon its initial publication by Satoshi Nakamoto on the Cypherpunks mailing list. All participants to the Cypherpunks list, including Satoshi Nakamoto, agreed to the Cypherpunks anti-License (CPL) for their list contributions, which states "The intent of the Cypherpunks anti-License (CPL) is to inform users that they are free to use and redistribute the indicated work or any derived or modified work in any manner they choose. Works distributed under the CPL are in the Public Domain. [...] The distributors will not use or participate as far as they are able to government legal systems to attempt to enforce requests restricting the use, modifications, or redistribution of the work for perpetuity."  

    • The Bitcoin Whitepaper was additionally released, along with the initial public version of the software, under the MIT license. This license is a perpetual grant to the general public of the right to “use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies” of the software and associated documentation files (including the Bitcoin Whitepaper) and may not be revoked or rescinded, even by the true author.
    
    • The Bitcoin Whitepaper was authored by a person or entity writing under the name Satoshi Nakamoto, and any exclusive rights under copyright are held by that person or entity (or their assignees). There is no evidence that Wright is that person; in fact, despite challenges in courts of law and mass media journalism, Wright has been either unable to provide proof, unwilling to produce proof, or produced documentary support in the form of forgeries. Any reasonable observer would conclude from this that Wright is unable to claim this connection through legitimate means, and is not Satoshi Nakamoto.

    • Wright has attempted to defraud the courts for his own personal advantage on previous occasions. For one example, he perjured himself in an earlier legal proceeding, which was exposed by the true owners of $200M+ in bitcoins he claimed to own producing unforgeable digital signatures stating that Wright was a fraud. His claims cannot simply be taken at face value, even when made through counsel.

It is therefore my good faith belief that I have valid license to distribute copies of the Bitcoin Whitepaper and that Wright’s claims do not have any bearing on that right. Upon that belief, I am hosting a copy at [ADDRESS].

I am providing notice to your firm so that any credible claims to the contrary may be addressed in a timely fashion to avoid running out the clock on equitable defenses.

Best,
[NAME]

Old version:

To: Simon Cohen <Simon.Cohen@ontier.co.uk>
Cc: Paul Ferguson <paul.ferguson@ontier.co.uk>

Mr. Cohen,

I have recently become aware that the firm of Ontier LLP has been sending notices on behalf of Craig S. Wright to parties hosting “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” (the “Bitcoin Whitepaper”), alleging that Mr. Wright is the rightful copyright holder of the Bitcoin Whitepaper and that further distribution is an infringement of Wright’s exclusive rights.

I believe this to be a fraudulent misrepresentation of both the authorship of the paper and of its licensing status for many reasons, including but not limited to the following:

    • The Bitcoin Whitepaper was released, along with the initial public version of the software, under the MIT license. This license is a perpetual grant to the general public of the right to “use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies” of the software and associated documentation files (including the Bitcoin Whitepaper) and may not be revoked or rescinded, even by the true author.
    
    • The Bitcoin Whitepaper was authored by a person or entity writing under the name Satoshi Nakamoto, and any exclusive rights under copyright are held by that person or entity (or their assignees). There is no evidence that Wright is that person; in fact, despite challenges in courts of law and mass media journalism, Wright has been either unable to provide proof, unwilling to produce proof, or produced documentary support in the form of forgeries. Any reasonable observer would conclude from this that Wright is unable to claim this connection through legitimate means, and is not Satoshi Nakamoto.

    • Wright has attempted to defraud the courts for his own personal advantage on previous occasions. For one example, he perjured himself in an earlier legal proceeding, which was exposed by the true owners of $200M+ in bitcoins he claimed to own producing unforgeable digital signatures stating that Wright was a fraud. His claims cannot simply be taken at face value, even when made through counsel.

It is therefore my good faith belief that I have valid license to distribute copies of the Bitcoin Whitepaper and that Wright’s claims do not have any bearing on that right. Upon that belief, I am hosting a copy at [ADDRESS].

I am providing notice to your firm so that any credible claims to the contrary may be addressed in a timely fashion to avoid running out the clock on equitable defenses.

Best,
[NAME]

[1714900453]

1714900453

[gmaxwell]

People have frequently asked what equitable defences means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity).

[spooderman]

God, for how long must this anus of a man plague bitcoin?

[QuintinS]

I'm pretty sure that there is a business law blocking this act in most countries, but I can't think what it's called. There is also another law, but I think it is the one you have pointed out. I'm not a lawyer, so can't really say.

[gmaxwell]

I've updated this with a new most excellent section that was substantially contributed by Arthur Van Pelt using supporting documentation provided by xtraelv.

[DaRude]

I'm surprised to see that one man (even backed by a billionaire) is able to terrorize everyone. I'm guessing this is not challenged in court due to limited financial resources? Is crowdfunding an option?

[xtraelv]

Bruce Fenton also wrote a great analysis. http://brucefenton.com/blog/copyright-and-the-bitcoin-white-paper/

[gmaxwell]

Bruce Fenton also wrote a great analysis. http://brucefenton.com/blog/copyright-and-the-bitcoin-white-paper/

Wow no, that analysis is just top to bottom full of errors.

"Papers by themselves aren’t licensed".  Not true.  Post Berne convention, any copyrightable work is copyrighted by default, and you cannot reproduce it without a license of some kind. (excepting some special cases like works of the US Federal government)  Papers often do specify licensing (unless they're all-rights-reserved: in which case you're just getting no license), specifying licensing is a universal requirement in academic publication (though sometimes you're not given a choice, you're just forced to assign copyright to the publisher or likewise).

"Open source documentation is also not copyrighted if it is given away in an open source license."  All licensed open source works are copyrighted.  The license permits you to do all sorts of stuff (if its an open source license), but it's still copyrighted and some rights are usually reserved (for example, even the most permissive licenses don't generally allow you to falsify attribution or strip licensing info).

"If the author or other owner claims ownership and registers it or uses (c), date and the copyright holder’s name at publication then it’s usually considered copyrighted."  post berne convention no copyright notice or registration is required for a work to be copyrighted. It's considered a polite practice, but is legally unimportant now.

In the US you need to register to sue in court, but that doesn't need to be done proactively in advance.

"the gift can’t be taken back and claimed as a copyright." The work is still copyrighted, so this sentence is just incoherent.  The licenses isn't revocable.

"If a copyright holder allows publication of a work by other sources and does not challenge this, the holder weakens its claim.", unlike trademark there is no duty to enforce in copyright.  Though there may be equitable defences in some situations (see mention in the letter) they are generally fairly narrow, and don't implicitly create a duty to enforce.

Providing actually false information doesn't help anyone, even if it's falsehoods used to cheer along a good cause.

Edit: After writing this, I found out that my partner, who is an attorney on the board of the Free Software foundation and is one of the authors of the CC-4.0 licenses independantly attempted to correct many of these and other errors earlier today and was just blown off.

[SatsLife]

Great thread Greg!

Why would the previously confirmed plagiarist decide to do this now? January 2021. Other than simply trying to attract more attention and stay “relevant“.

[M-BTC]

Does the CPL-license also apply to the Cryptography mailing list, since that is where Satoshi spread the whitepaper?

[BitcoinFX]

I've updated this with a new most excellent section that was substantially contributed by Arthur Van Pelt using supporting documentation provided by xtraelv.

h/t xtraelv, @MyLegacyKit (twitter), nutildah (for the forum topic https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149062.0 ) and to all who continually refute and debunk CSW's claim to be satoshi, as he has not provided any valid cryptographically assured proof, to date, whatsoever, whilst remaining abhorrent towards original Bitcoin (BTC), the developers and the entire cryptocurrency community.

We were ready for this. Truth and justice must prevail.

I'm guessing around a 0.00000001% chance that Craig Wright will actually waltz off with any Bitcoin related Intellectual Property in this case.

Craig Wright is not satoshi and he had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of Bitcoin.

Dave Kleiman is not satoshi either and he had nothing to do with the creation of Bitcoin.

One of Dave's hard drives contained a text note which stated "Is this a Satoshi address ..." (in a recent court doc.) ... he was a digital forensic investigator ...

Which is why I recall this ...

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4359615.msg42180805#msg42180805

...

Craig Wright attempting to obtain Bitcoin related Intellectual Property through this court case (now a total farce) is quite clearly the 'end game' to justify his means. He has tried to 'hijack' the Bitcoin project, although he has only provided proven fabrications and circumstantial evidence to date, and therefore he will fail.

The only winners in this case are already the lawyers, which is usually the case!

...

The patents that both Craig and nChain 'hold' are completely worthless i.e. Prior Art ...

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5216304.msg53820493#msg53820493

Highlights ...

"Worthless and unenforceable patents !?

- https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5960/can-i-patent-open-source-project

"You can not patent code. You can only patent an invention which is implemented in your code. An invention is a new and unique way of doing something..."

...

"... Most of all, it must be something nobody did before. If anyone used the same technique which you describe in your patent, that's called prior art and invalidates your patent..."

...

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149062.msg52932888#msg52932888

Quote: "The bitcoin whitepaper was first distributed by Satoshi Nakamoto on the Cypherpunks mailing list. The mailing list has a Cypherpunks anti-License. http://cypherspace.org/CPL/ ... "

...

"Background ...

The CPL is written from a mindset which derides the very concept of Intellectual Property restrictions as being incompatible with a free society ..."

...

"... Cryptographically assured anonymity and anonymous use of Internet resources mean that denizens of cypherspace can ignore copyright, licenses attempting to control use and distribution of works, and patents on ideas..."

...

"... It is not possible to enforce IP laws by calls to government legal systems when the flaunter is strongly anonymous. ..."

...

"CSW's and nChain's patents are likely Prior Art i.e. worthless and unenforceable without said cryptographically assured proof."

...

Returning to the OP ...

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5250960.0

CSW has provided zero cryptographically assured proof, to date, whilst others have cryptographically proven him to be a liar and a fraud.

...

satoshi, in many respects, was Hal Finney.

Nakamoto, the originator, was/is someone else entirely ... N+1

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155191.0

...

For Whom The Bell Tolls ...
- https://youtu.be/eeqGuaAl6Ic

Good work gmaxwell! (and of course to the the real Satoshi Nakamoto for being so prescient in this regard!)

[Coinsfera]

The man has appeared again and claims the copyright of #Bitcoin #whitepaper. Unbelievable.

[mrdavis]

Well, I hope I get a letter back so I can hang it on my wall.

Selling literally self-hosted copies here:
http://teespring.com/white-paper

[Renampun]

*thanks g for the warning and thanks also for this great topic...
taking care of that scammer would only be a drain on energy. he will not recover from his ambition to become the richest man in the world with the Bitcoin whitepaper in under his bed. C.W is a jerk as well as bsv.

[DaRude]

*thanks g for the warning and thanks also for this great topic...
taking care of that scammer would only be a drain on energy. he will not recover from his ambition to become the richest man in the world with the Bitcoin whitepaper in under his bed. C.W is a jerk as well as bsv.

Questions is whether this would be setting a precedent, and would be harder to challenge later on. Clearly the goal here is not to hide the whitepaper but rather spook investors and once again remind of yourself as an ongoing risk to be considered.

[chek2fire]

Craig Wright transform to a patent troll.

[ranman09]

What? HAHA! so he was trying to control the distribution of the white paper? So what, he can release it on Amazon Kindle? He would do this, all of this, for money?

I'm not that familiar with him, is he somehow related to Craig's List?

[xtraelv]

A free opinion piece is never the same as a detailed legal opinion.

I've since asked a business associate that specializes in copyright law to have a look at the different opinions.

Bruce Fenton also wrote a great analysis. http://brucefenton.com/blog/copyright-and-the-bitcoin-white-paper/

Wow no, that analysis is just top to bottom full of errors.

"Papers by themselves aren’t licensed".  Not true.  Post Berne convention, any copyrightable work is copyrighted by default, and you cannot reproduce it without a license of some kind. (excepting some special cases like works of the US Federal government)  Papers often do specify licensing (unless they're all-rights-reserved: in which case you're just getting no license), specifying licensing is a universal requirement in academic publication (though sometimes you're not given a choice, you're just forced to assign copyright to the publisher or likewise).

"Open source documentation is also not copyrighted if it is given away in an open source license."  All licensed open source works are copyrighted.  The license permits you to do all sorts of stuff (if its an open source license), but it's still copyrighted and some rights are usually reserved (for example, even the most permissive licenses don't generally allow you to falsify attribution or strip licensing info).

"If the author or other owner claims ownership and registers it or uses (c), date and the copyright holder’s name at publication then it’s usually considered copyrighted."  post berne convention no copyright notice or registration is required for a work to be copyrighted. It's considered a polite practice, but is legally unimportant now.

In the US you need to register to sue in court, but that doesn't need to be done proactively in advance.

"the gift can’t be taken back and claimed as a copyright." The work is still copyrighted, so this sentence is just incoherent.  The licenses isn't revocable.

"If a copyright holder allows publication of a work by other sources and does not challenge this, the holder weakens its claim.", unlike trademark there is no duty to enforce in copyright.  Though there may be equitable defences in some situations (see mention in the letter) they are generally fairly narrow, and don't implicitly create a duty to enforce.

Providing actually false information doesn't help anyone, even if it's falsehoods used to cheer along a good cause.

Edit: After writing this, I found out that my partner, who is an attorney on the board of the Free Software foundation and is one of the authors of the CC-4.0 licenses independantly attempted to correct many of these and other errors earlier today and was just blown off.

[BobLawblaw]

Selling literally self-hosted copies here:
http://teespring.com/white-paper

No white text on black shirt option.

This is a tremendous oversight, not to mention a terrible crime against basic fashion-sense.

[DaRude]

If i was asked to say the most anti Satoshi thing i could think of i'd be hard pressed to think of something better that this

...I will burn Cryptocurrency to non existence and have the US government collect the ashes...

In any case, expecting mass carpet lawsuits against every dev next, hope they're ready and coordination is being prepped. Short term contingency plans for anonymous contributions behind tor, etc would also be nice. Bastards can easily finance it by Ayre shorting the market by front running  the "announcement" too.

[pixie85]

Poor delusional Craig thinks he has 5 billion dollars If he had that much he'd be able to finance a 51% attack or mine bitcoin himself.  He'd be able to set up his own exchange for shitcoins, but what coins would he include there if he'd exclude Bitcoin and his sister coin (BCH)?

Craig is debating the destruction of Bitcoin and in the meantime his coin gradually loses value.
Price in 2020 according to CMC:
February $360
March $246
April $213
May $206
June $197

And so on...

With some brief jumps along the way, in October it was worth only $180 and now is at 173.
Anybody can guess how many millions in USD is Craig losing every month if he continues to hold BSV, because I'm pretty sure he doesn't have any real bitcoins

[chek2fire]

If i was asked to say the most anti Satoshi thing i could think of i'd be hard pressed to think of something better that this

...I will burn Cryptocurrency to non existence and have the US government collect the ashes...

In any case, expecting mass carpet lawsuits against every dev next, hope they're ready and coordination is being prepped. Short term contingency plans for anonymous contributions behind tor, etc would also be nice. Bastards can easily finance it by Ayre shorting the market by front running  the "announcement" too.

for sure this guy have serious mental problems. I cant explain why someone whiling to burn his money so easy. There is not a single court in this world that can win a case like this.
Maybe he gambling that ppl will step down after the threats and the cases will never get to the court but if i was a dev and get a threat like this i will never have step down.
This guy not only will loose every trial but he had in the end to pay and the trial fees.

[DaRude]

If i was asked to say the most anti Satoshi thing i could think of i'd be hard pressed to think of something better that this

...I will burn Cryptocurrency to non existence and have the US government collect the ashes...

In any case, expecting mass carpet lawsuits against every dev next, hope they're ready and coordination is being prepped. Short term contingency plans for anonymous contributions behind tor, etc would also be nice. Bastards can easily finance it by Ayre shorting the market by front running  the "announcement" too.

for sure this guy have serious mental problems. I cant explain why someone whiling to burn his money so easy. There is not a single court in this world that can win a case like this.
Maybe he gambling that ppl will step down after the threats and the cases will never get to the court but if i was a dev and get a threat like this i will never have step down.
This guy not only will loose every trial but he had in the end to pay and the trial fees.

The point of these lawsuits is not to win but cause as much financial and personal losses as possible. Easy to say that you'd never step down when you're behind a keyboard, but when you're served, fighting it means you're guaranteed huge financial and personal losses which can drag out for years (look at Kleiman), and your best case outcome is you're back to where you were before the lawsuit started. Devs should be left to code and not litigate. Since foundation is no more, hoping something is being organized to coordinate/fund raise once every contribute to git is served, at this point i'd be disappointed in faketoshi if this DIDN'T happen.

[DaRude]

Ha just saw this

https://www.fidelitydigitalassets.com/blog/download/bitcoin-whitepaper.pdf

That's a nice 1 ton gorilla in our corner, i can imagine ontier's lawyers having a heart attack when seeing this





Edit: Oh you claim to have $5 billion, that's cute, see this guerilla right there it actually has much much more  

[Sirait]

for sure this guy have serious mental problems. I cant explain why someone whiling to burn his money so easy. There is not a single court in this world that can win a case like this.
Maybe he gambling that ppl will step down after the threats and the cases will never get to the court but if i was a dev and get a threat like this i will never have step down.
This guy not only will loose every trial but he had in the end to pay and the trial fees.

^ I once heard a theory from my friend who is a lawyer, he said that "when in court it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, what matters is an accurate argument and explanation". I am sure the scamtoshi will lose if the claimant has sufficient solid evidence of the rights of the Bitcoin whitepaper. I am really looking forward to the happy news where Scamtoshi Craig Wright will go to jail for a fake Bitcoin copyright claim.

[LoyceV]

Yo, Crack Wrong, did you see https://bitcointalk.org/bitcoin.pdf yet?

I can't wait for theymos to receive your legal threats and publish them to make it clear to the world that you are illegitimately and possibly-illegally attempting to stifle discussion.

[chek2fire]

If i was asked to say the most anti Satoshi thing i could think of i'd be hard pressed to think of something better that this

...I will burn Cryptocurrency to non existence and have the US government collect the ashes...

In any case, expecting mass carpet lawsuits against every dev next, hope they're ready and coordination is being prepped. Short term contingency plans for anonymous contributions behind tor, etc would also be nice. Bastards can easily finance it by Ayre shorting the market by front running  the "announcement" too.

for sure this guy have serious mental problems. I cant explain why someone whiling to burn his money so easy. There is not a single court in this world that can win a case like this.
Maybe he gambling that ppl will step down after the threats and the cases will never get to the court but if i was a dev and get a threat like this i will never have step down.
This guy not only will loose every trial but he had in the end to pay and the trial fees.

The point of these lawsuits is not to win but cause as much financial and personal losses as possible. Easy to say that you'd never step down when you're behind a keyboard, but when you're served, fighting it means you're guaranteed huge financial and personal losses which can drag out for years (look at Kleiman), and your best case outcome is you're back to where you were before the lawsuit started. Devs should be left to code and not litigate. Since foundation is no more, hoping something is being organized to coordinate/fund raise once every contribute to git is served, at this point i'd be disappointed in faketoshi if this DIDN'T happen.

i think in this space especially devs have the money to not afraid lawsuits.

[DaRude]

If i was asked to say the most anti Satoshi thing i could think of i'd be hard pressed to think of something better that this

...I will burn Cryptocurrency to non existence and have the US government collect the ashes...

In any case, expecting mass carpet lawsuits against every dev next, hope they're ready and coordination is being prepped. Short term contingency plans for anonymous contributions behind tor, etc would also be nice. Bastards can easily finance it by Ayre shorting the market by front running  the "announcement" too.

for sure this guy have serious mental problems. I cant explain why someone whiling to burn his money so easy. There is not a single court in this world that can win a case like this.
Maybe he gambling that ppl will step down after the threats and the cases will never get to the court but if i was a dev and get a threat like this i will never have step down.
This guy not only will loose every trial but he had in the end to pay and the trial fees.

The point of these lawsuits is not to win but cause as much financial and personal losses as possible. Easy to say that you'd never step down when you're behind a keyboard, but when you're served, fighting it means you're guaranteed huge financial and personal losses which can drag out for years (look at Kleiman), and your best case outcome is you're back to where you were before the lawsuit started. Devs should be left to code and not litigate. Since foundation is no more, hoping something is being organized to coordinate/fund raise once every contribute to git is served, at this point i'd be disappointed in faketoshi if this DIDN'T happen.

i think in this space especially devs have the money to not afraid lawsuits.

That's just not true, devs are not traders or investors (or lawyers). Time is money, and they're already committing a lot of their time to the project, they're the ultimate "i'm in it for the tech" people. I'm sure some that had spare resources are well off, but many like Andreas A. who despite writing one of the first books on it, never held a huge stash. I'm going to guess you never been dragged through the courts, constant lawyer fees, endless emergency motions, never ending meeting etc etc etc... are no fun, now when it drags for years it becomes a real issue (and that's the point). Devs don't mind compromising on what they perceive as semantics, just to be left alone and continue working on the tech (exactly what we see happening here). Expecting devs to jump on the grenade not for their personal work, but to defend communities' ability to rightfully use the term bitcoin is ridiculous. The consequence of such (non tech) decisions should be analyzed by lawyers, funded by investors (who have the most to loose). Luckily as we see Fidelity (and coinbase?) hosting the whitepaper they seemed to have picked up on this.

[BitcoinMoses]

We Are All Satoshi

Except for Craig S. Wright.

Craig Wright definitely is not, but he would really like everyone to believe he is.

Satoshi Nakamoto authored the Bitcoin Whitepaper with the intention that it be shared widely, and Craig Wright’s takedown notices are fraudulent, but since he is a litigious jerk who has bankrupted people with his fraudulent legal claims in court, it is sometimes a wise strategic choice to avoid provoking him into suing, which is expensive and disruptive to a defendant even when they ultimately win.

But you might be in a good position to host this paper that Craig Wright so desperately wants taken down and kept under his exclusive control. And you might want to give notice to his attorneys, just to let them know.  Below is an example notice you can send to his attornies.

Warning: sending this makes you considerably more likely to become the target of a lawsuit by Craig Wright. You should think about whether you are prepared to be in that position before sending this letter.

(This is absolutely, positively, not legal advice, and you are strongly encouraged to consult with your own attorney.)

To: Simon Cohen <Simon.Cohen@ontier.co.uk>
Cc: Paul Ferguson <paul.ferguson@ontier.co.uk>

Mr. Cohen,

I have recently become aware that the firm of Ontier LLP has been sending notices on behalf of Craig S. Wright to parties hosting “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” (the “Bitcoin Whitepaper”), alleging that Mr. Wright is the rightful copyright holder of the Bitcoin Whitepaper and that further distribution is an infringement of Wright’s exclusive rights.

I believe this to be a fraudulent misrepresentation of both the authorship of the paper and of its licensing status for many reasons, including but not limited to the following:

    • The Bitcoin Whitepaper was released into the public domain upon its initial publication by Satoshi Nakamoto on the Cypherpunks mailing list. All participants to the Cypherpunks list, including Satoshi Nakamoto, agreed to the Cypherpunks anti-License (CPL) for their list contributions, which states "The intent of the Cypherpunks anti-License (CPL) is to inform users that they are free to use and redistribute the indicated work or any derived or modified work in any manner they choose. Works distributed under the CPL are in the Public Domain. [...] The distributors will not use or participate as far as they are able to government legal systems to attempt to enforce requests restricting the use, modifications, or redistribution of the work for perpetuity."  

    • The Bitcoin Whitepaper was additionally released, along with the initial public version of the software, under the MIT license. This license is a perpetual grant to the general public of the right to “use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies” of the software and associated documentation files (including the Bitcoin Whitepaper) and may not be revoked or rescinded, even by the true author.
    
    • The Bitcoin Whitepaper was authored by a person or entity writing under the name Satoshi Nakamoto, and any exclusive rights under copyright are held by that person or entity (or their assignees). There is no evidence that Wright is that person; in fact, despite challenges in courts of law and mass media journalism, Wright has been either unable to provide proof, unwilling to produce proof, or produced documentary support in the form of forgeries. Any reasonable observer would conclude from this that Wright is unable to claim this connection through legitimate means, and is not Satoshi Nakamoto.

    • Wright has attempted to defraud the courts for his own personal advantage on previous occasions. For one example, he perjured himself in an earlier legal proceeding, which was exposed by the true owners of $200M+ in bitcoins he claimed to own producing unforgeable digital signatures stating that Wright was a fraud. His claims cannot simply be taken at face value, even when made through counsel.

It is therefore my good faith belief that I have valid license to distribute copies of the Bitcoin Whitepaper and that Wright’s claims do not have any bearing on that right. Upon that belief, I am hosting a copy at [ADDRESS].

I am providing notice to your firm so that any credible claims to the contrary may be addressed in a timely fashion to avoid running out the clock on equitable defenses.

Best,
[NAME]

Old version:

To: Simon Cohen <Simon.Cohen@ontier.co.uk>
Cc: Paul Ferguson <paul.ferguson@ontier.co.uk>

Mr. Cohen,

I have recently become aware that the firm of Ontier LLP has been sending notices on behalf of Craig S. Wright to parties hosting “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” (the “Bitcoin Whitepaper”), alleging that Mr. Wright is the rightful copyright holder of the Bitcoin Whitepaper and that further distribution is an infringement of Wright’s exclusive rights.

I believe this to be a fraudulent misrepresentation of both the authorship of the paper and of its licensing status for many reasons, including but not limited to the following:

    • The Bitcoin Whitepaper was released, along with the initial public version of the software, under the MIT license. This license is a perpetual grant to the general public of the right to “use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies” of the software and associated documentation files (including the Bitcoin Whitepaper) and may not be revoked or rescinded, even by the true author.
    
    • The Bitcoin Whitepaper was authored by a person or entity writing under the name Satoshi Nakamoto, and any exclusive rights under copyright are held by that person or entity (or their assignees). There is no evidence that Wright is that person; in fact, despite challenges in courts of law and mass media journalism, Wright has been either unable to provide proof, unwilling to produce proof, or produced documentary support in the form of forgeries. Any reasonable observer would conclude from this that Wright is unable to claim this connection through legitimate means, and is not Satoshi Nakamoto.

    • Wright has attempted to defraud the courts for his own personal advantage on previous occasions. For one example, he perjured himself in an earlier legal proceeding, which was exposed by the true owners of $200M+ in bitcoins he claimed to own producing unforgeable digital signatures stating that Wright was a fraud. His claims cannot simply be taken at face value, even when made through counsel.

It is therefore my good faith belief that I have valid license to distribute copies of the Bitcoin Whitepaper and that Wright’s claims do not have any bearing on that right. Upon that belief, I am hosting a copy at [ADDRESS].

I am providing notice to your firm so that any credible claims to the contrary may be addressed in a timely fashion to avoid running out the clock on equitable defenses.

Best,
[NAME]

Hi Greg,

You are doing a great job for the Bitcoin Project. Sre you sure you all are Satoshi except Craig Wright ?  What a out myself  ?   When you say "we are all Satoshi"  who else are with you  ?  You all are just a group of developers. Why are you claiming to be Satoshi ? Satoshi is just a Japanese pseudonym. What benefits will you get   by claiming to be Satoshi ? 

[DooMAD]

When you say "we are all Satoshi"  who else are with you  ?  You all are just a group of developers. Why are you claiming to be Satoshi ? Satoshi is just a Japanese pseudonym. What benefits will you get   by claiming to be Satoshi ? 

Not literally.  We are all satoshi in spirit if we believe in the principles Bitcoin was founded upon.  Craig Faketoshi Wright doesn't have principles of any kind, let alone the ones enshrined in Bitcoin.

[Annie Bevan4578]

Thank you for your earning, I am not Satoshi

[DaRude]

https://mchenry.house.gov/bitcoin.pdf

How much do you think Ontier LLP would charge to sue US goverment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

[Wind_FURY]

If i was asked to say the most anti Satoshi thing i could think of i'd be hard pressed to think of something better that this

...I will burn Cryptocurrency to non existence and have the US government collect the ashes...

In any case, expecting mass carpet lawsuits against every dev next, hope they're ready and coordination is being prepped. Short term contingency plans for anonymous contributions behind tor, etc would also be nice. Bastards can easily finance it by Ayre shorting the market by front running  the "announcement" too.

for sure this guy have serious mental problems. I cant explain why someone whiling to burn his money so easy. There is not a single court in this world that can win a case like this.
Maybe he gambling that ppl will step down after the threats and the cases will never get to the court but if i was a dev and get a threat like this i will never have step down.
This guy not only will loose every trial but he had in the end to pay and the trial fees.

The point of these lawsuits is not to win but cause as much financial and personal losses as possible. Easy to say that you'd never step down when you're behind a keyboard, but when you're served, fighting it means you're guaranteed huge financial and personal losses which can drag out for years (look at Kleiman), and your best case outcome is you're back to where you were before the lawsuit started. Devs should be left to code and not litigate. Since foundation is no more, hoping something is being organized to coordinate/fund raise once every contribute to git is served, at this point i'd be disappointed in faketoshi if this DIDN'T happen.

i think in this space especially devs have the money to not afraid lawsuits.

It’s not purely about money. It’s the inconvenience of breaking your routine, finding a lawyer, going to court, amd sitting in there listening to what you truly know is a charade by a con-artist. Why waste your valuable time?

[LeGaulois]

What will be the first government to host the Bitcoin white paper to make fun with Craig Wright?  

Challenge accepted by Estonia that decided to host it to provoke him.
https://e-resident.gov.ee/bitcoin-whitepaper/

Colombia is doing the same to join Estonia and so host it as well
https://go.gov.co/bitcoin

Now I challenge him to sue Estonia's and Colombia's government

Oh, the USA are also hosting the white paper somewhere on the website of the U.S. Sentencing Commission
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/annual-national-training-seminar/2018/Emerging_Tech_Bitcoin_Crypto.pdf

Good luck CW  

Edit:

Proud to say Miami is the first municipal government to host Satoshi’s White Paper on government site

https://twitter.com/FrancisSuarez/status/1354488469091975168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[Wind_FURY]

I believe Craig Wright’s long-term goal for doing this is probably to take, and claim the Bitcoin name, symbol, and ticker “rights” as his own because “He Satoshi”, then use that for his forked-shitcoin fork Bcash SV.

[xtraelv]

Craig Wright must be amazing.

What a feat.

The Satoshi whitepaper with no copyright details attached PDF version 1.4 was created at EXACTLY the same time as the PDF  version 1.6 with his copyright details attached.




https://imgur.com/ge6OBUo
https://imgur.com/hSAvkgQ

https://www.metadata2go.com/result/34299c05-8cf7-494b-adf8-12cb72ca5b0a

https://www.metadata2go.com/result/5563e6d1-d810-4c39-9f4d-90645a61f603

Either a Chuck Norris moment or could it be a fake ?

[LeGaulois]

@xtraelv

It is something that can easily be manipulated with tools such as Adobe and can even be done directly online on a website.
You can change the date, keywords, and other stuff.

Frankly, coming from this person I wouldn't even be surprised. It wouldn't be the first time.

What is the chance to have 2 white papers about a disrupting technology created exactly at the same date and the same hour?
Statistically, you have more chance to win a nice amount scratching lottery tickets


See, I can say Jesus Christ created the white paper before anyone else in the year 0 in the Gregorian calendar.



https://www.metadata2go.com/result/611980a8-ddd8-4fc7-8b46-1a9bd8ec8c68

[xtraelv]

@xtraelv

It is something that can easily be manipulated with tools such as Adobe and can even be done directly online on a website.
You can change the date, keywords, and other stuff.

Frankly, coming from this person I wouldn't even be surprised. It wouldn't be the first time.

What is the chance to have 2 white papers about a disrupting technology created exactly at the same date and the same hour?
Statistically, you have more chance to win a nice amount scratching lottery tickets

It was sarcasm.

The bitcoin whitepaper is available from the 2009 archive with the same meta data as the one on bitcoin.org

Craigs version has a newer version number, exact same creation time and date.

The simplest explanation is that Craigs version is fake.

[franky1]

CSW game all along has not been to claim any coins from any satoshi stash. he knows he doesnt have the keys.

CSW game has ALWAYS been slapp lawsuits.
it wont matter if you send the letter Gmax noted. CSW will still target you and just pretend he never received the advance warning. and then SLAPP you into months of legal costs of making you prove that you informed him.

it wont matter that you did or didnt then put the white paper on the address.
it wont matter that he has no claim on the paper.
it wont matter if you can prove things on day 1

he will still target you with delay processes requiring your defense to spend legal hours filing papers just to answer his strategically alloted questions every 14 days.. hoping you wil just hand him a settlement to avoid your legal costs just to fight his empty claims.

thats how slapps work

[Rengga Jati]

This man again? Well, I don't know what makes him so interested to be and acquired as Satoshi. Does he really need that kind of popularity and also acknowledgment.
Well, if somebody still believes n what he said, clear enough that they are one in crypto that only follows hypes and also only sees the progress based on one chance. Here, about every update by CW or other issues, better to check and recheck first if you don't know about CW itself

[xrz]

All that matters ^_^

Code:

https://faketoshi.cypherpunks.xyz/

Code:

https://cypherpunks.xyz/bitcoin.html
https://cypherpunks.xyz/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc
https://cypherpunks.xyz/bitcoin.pdf
https://cypherpunks.xyz/anti-license.txt

[Wind_FURY]

CSW game all along has not been to claim any coins from any satoshi stash. he knows he doesnt have the keys.

CSW game has ALWAYS been slapp lawsuits.
it wont matter if you send the letter Gmax noted. CSW will still target you and just pretend he never received the advance warning. and then SLAPP you into months of legal costs of making you prove that you informed him.

it wont matter that you did or didnt then put the white paper on the address.
it wont matter that he has no claim on the paper.
it wont matter if you can prove things on day 1

he will still target you with delay processes requiring your defense to spend legal hours filing papers just to answer his strategically alloted questions every 14 days.. hoping you wil just hand him a settlement to avoid your legal costs just to fight his empty claims.

thats how slapps work

That’s all? But he can’t “SLAPP” each person in the community, like what he’s doing/did to Peter McCormack and hodlnaut. Plus I believe he is losing those lawsuits, and the money spent in his own legal fees. Calvin Ayre can’t support him financially forever.

[franky1]

That’s all? But he can’t “SLAPP” each person in the community, like what he’s doing/did to Peter McCormack and hodlnaut. Plus I believe he is losing those lawsuits, and the money spent in his own legal fees. Calvin Ayre can’t support him financially forever.

the trick for SLAPPERS is when they file a claim. they dont need a lawyer. they just file a claim for cheap. and then periodically just pester you with a new question every 14-28 days. just being annoying. keeping the claim alive.
their aim is not to get it to trial. to actually be judged. but to waste time for months/years with endless questions. forcing YOU to waste your time and money defending yourself.

the game is that if you stop responding they can trigger a default judgement in their favour,, thus costing you more. or just keep you in limbo for months/years hoping you pay them just to go away because its cheaper to shut them up than for you to keep defending their annoying case that is now costing you thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours..

they want you to seek legal advice. they will tailor their questions into things that end up costing you money to respond. they want to keep you wrapped up in lengthy periods hoping you calculate how much it would cost to fight something for 1-2 years. and then offer them a hush settlement at below that amount to just go away.
their game is to get a settlement or bankrupt you. its not about getting it into a courtroom trial.

if all goes quiet and they dont push a judgement.. all they have lost is about a couple hundred dollars, to file a claim. and about 30 minutes a month writing you letters.
your the one that has spent thousands of dollars checking with lawyers.
your the one that has spend hundreds of hours trying to answer them.

while you think your winning by replying/playing their game. your not realising its their game.

their questions content mean nothing. your replies content mean nothing.
they are just wanting to waste your time and money.

slapp:
A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

[Wind_FURY]

Aren’t there anti-SLAPP laws for this kind of issues? Because it is an issue. Frauds, and con-artists can’t just file a defamation lawsuit as a convenience to stop people from talking. Plus what happened to free speech? I believe we should start including the message Craig is NOT Satoshi in our transactions. Haha.

[franky1]

Aren’t there anti-SLAPP laws for this kind of issues? Because it is an issue. Frauds, and con-artists can’t just file a defamation lawsuit as a convenience to stop people from talking. Plus what happened to free speech? I believe we should start including the message Craig is NOT Satoshi in our transactions. Haha.

not in all states. simple solution for CSW. file a claim in a state that doesnt have anti-slapp

but the slapp game CSW is playing is not to silence opponents. its to pester opponents into costing the opponents time and money. hoping the opponents balance their books and calculate its cheaper to just pay CSW to go silent.

CSW wants to fake-wins by showing he has received settlements or the opponent has given up fighting CSW worthless game for CSW to declare himself winner.
he then wants to use the fake-wins to then do book/movie deals
(because thats what he promised would be his revenue methods to repay calvin and other investors he scammed)

the more people that shout about CSW the more targets he can get to con money out of them. he doesnt want people to stop talking about him

best defense is ignore CSW. dont make him a topic of conversation. ban him from conferences. stop him from having a platform.

..
now as for free speech. everyone has the freedom to wiggle their tongue and flap their lips. but thats the extent of freedom of speech.
you are not entitled or 'righted' by law or constitution to any platform/app/microphone to amplify your speech.
unless YOU OWN the platform/app/microphone.
by owning an amplifer/platform. you can give permission and invite others to use your microphone/app/platform. but then you are responsible. platforms are not 100% absolved of responsibility. even with DMCA s.230
twitter/facebook/bitcointalk. is not a human right.
and moderation is actually a responsibility platforms have to think about

rights come with responsibility.
hense why when wiggling your tongue.. slander is a thing.
hense why when writing a blog.. libel is a thing

media have 'editor-in-chief' to moderate what their employees write and worthy of public knowledge without it causing backlash to the platform/employee.
yep you may not believe it but mainstream media have to be careful too.

[bassbity]

"Papers by themselves aren’t licensed".  Not true.  Post Berne convention, any copyrightable work is copyrighted by default, and you cannot reproduce it without a license of some kind. (excepting some special cases like works of the US Federal government)  Papers often do specify licensing (unless they're all-rights-reserved: in which case you're just getting no license), specifying licensing is a universal requirement in academic publication (though sometimes you're not given a choice, you're just forced to assign copyright to the publisher or likewise).

"Open source documentation is also not copyrighted if it is given away in an open source license."  All licensed open source works are copyrighted.  The license permits you to do all sorts of stuff (if its an open source license), but it's still copyrighted and some rights are usually reserved (for example, even the most permissive licenses don't generally allow you to falsify attribution or strip licensing info).

Each scientific paper provides arguments based on new findings based on problems taken from the field. We watched as many publishers renovated every copyrighted work and made revisions. this guarantees the validity of copyright itself. and can be accounted for academically.

extraordinary for you

[lifeforcepools]

Craig is absolutely not Satoshi. He doesn't have a single piece of evidence to the contrary.

[DaRude]

https://opencrypto.org/members/

Oh just found out about COPA there ya go, good replacement for bitcoin foundation

https://www.coindesk.com/square-crypto-consortium-craig-wright-bitcoin-white-paper-claim

[CarnagexD]

Long as the record is set straight among us that this guy here is not the real Satoshi Nakamoto, then we shouldn't have a problem anymore even kf he tried his bestest to claim ownership and all. Let's prove to him that he's a nobody here and that noone believes him, that way the guy will finally see for himself that nobody really cares at all.

Aren’t there anti-SLAPP laws for this kind of issues? Because it is an issue. Frauds, and con-artists can’t just file a defamation lawsuit as a convenience to stop people from talking. Plus what happened to free speech? I believe we should start including the message Craig is NOT Satoshi in our transactions. Haha.

Then again, the thing here is that the court cannot outrule the possibility that the dumbass is Satoshi himself, just as much as they can't say he is. So until proven otherwise, the court can label him as a scammer yet at least within the bounds of the law.

[Wind_FURY]

More SLAPP? This from hodlnaut’s Twitter, which he was also sued by Craig Wright just for saying that, “Craig Wright is a scammer and a fraud”.

CSW is currently building a case against the CORE DEVELOPERS. Hahaha.





Another one of his A-game trolling?

[DooMAD]

Another one of his A-game trolling?

Looks more like an own-goal to me.  By resorting to this desperate act, Faketoshi is proving beyond doubt they are nothing like satoshi.  These are not the actions of someone who respects a decentralised system where no one is in a position to "restore" (LOL) access like this.

[Wind_FURY]

Another one of his A-game trolling?

Looks more like an own-goal to me.  By resorting to this desperate act, Faketoshi is proving beyond doubt they are nothing like satoshi.  These are not the actions of someone who respects a decentralised system where no one is in a position to "restore" (LOL) access like this.

He claims that he’s Satoshi, he claims that Bitcoin Cash SV is the real Bitcoin, then why doesn’t he tell his developers to change the rules in the real Bitcoin, then send the coins he wants to his own address?

“Satoshi”, https://twitter.com/magicaltux/status/1364872416187404292

[DooMAD]

he claims that Bitcoin Cash SV is the real Bitcoin, then why doesn’t he tell his developers to change the rules in the real Bitcoin, then send the coins he wants to his own address?

My understanding is that he's doing that, too.  BTC, BCH and BSV are all included in his legal shenanigans.  He seemingly wants the coins on all forks.  Even though he is the figurehead for BSV, I'd honestly doubt that even the BSV devs would go along with this.  It would destroy any shred of credibility that chain had remaining.  And I'd estimate there's zero chance BTC or BCH devs will give in to his demands.

It's honestly a stretch to see where faketoshi takes it from here.  I can't imagine how you'd escalate things any further from this point.  Fingers crossed this is his "last hurrah" and after this he has exhausted all other avenues and finally gives up.

[gmaxwell]

CSW game all along has not been to claim any coins from any satoshi stash.

You still holding this position franky1?

"Bitcoin Association" (nchain staff operating under another name) have pretty much announced that they intend to help Wright steal those BSV that he's demanding.  

True, most of them are coins rightfully belonging to MTGox creditors, but give him time...

Pilfering the BSV side of just these 111k coins will yield $21 million dollars -- that will fund plenty of bullshit litigation.

[GeorgeJohn]

*thanks g for the warning and thanks also for this great topic...
taking care of that scammer would only be a drain on energy. he will not recover from his ambition to become the richest man in the world with the Bitcoin whitepaper in under his bed. C.W is a jerk as well as bsv.

Normally staff gmaxwell knows what is obtainable, before creating such topic he might reason the positive impact and negative impacts of this before making it known to community, now  that's the reason while some people here write topics on poem concerning scammers, because any process whereby a scammer come in contact with who ever they really wants to scam, they don't set back or set the person free, and their is no way such person can recover whats been highjacked by a scammer.

[goldy888]

I need help

My name Alain Andre Desarzens How i can get my report and my url address for bitcoin,org

id goldy888

THank You
Alain
maya007@cgocable.ca
alainandre@cgocable.ca
same IP
   

[bitcoinstonk]

CSW game all along has not been to claim any coins from any satoshi stash.

You still holding this position franky1?

"Bitcoin Association" (nchain staff operating under another name) have pretty much announced that they intend to help Wright steal those BSV that he's demanding.  

True, most of them are coins rightfully belonging to MTGox creditors, but give him time...

Pilfering the BSV side of just these 111k coins will yield $21 million dollars -- that will fund plenty of bullshit litigation.

More importantly, it will establish the precedent that coin devs *do* have the power to confiscate funds from one address and give it to another address without a valid signed transaction. They will hard code it into the source code. txid deadbeef doesn't need a signature check.

Then they'll claim: Bitcoin SV complied, therefore it is possible for Bitcoin Core to also comply, and their claims that it's technically impossible are false.

The whole point of this is to get courts to understand that they can force the Core devs to seize bitcoins and do with them what the court demands. The claim that "It's technically impossible" will be proven to be false. It requires a hard fork, but it's possible.

His story about being hacked is almost certainly false. But it's a cleverly chosen lie. It allows him to ask the courts to force you to seize money, and allows him to prove that it's possible.

[DooMAD]

But it's a cleverly chosen lie. It allows him to ask the courts to force you to seize money, and allows him to prove that it's possible.

It's not that clever.  A considerable portion of the value proposition of Bitcoin is that no one can seize your funds.  In the event it could be proven it's possible for people to file frivolous lawsuits and subsequently be awarded coins that don't belong to them, it would completely annihilate that value proposition.  The coins he would obtain in such an event would be worth very little after vast swathes of people abandon crypto for good and the entire crypto ecosystem goes into freefall.  Which is precisely why it's never going to happen. 

Maybe he'll bag the BSV coins and effectively kill his own shitcoin.  That's at least somewhat plausible.  In fact, fingers crossed on that outcome.  I'd love to witness the mass-uglycry when all the faketoshi fanboys get rekt by their own messiah.

[bitcoinstonk]

But it's a cleverly chosen lie. It allows him to ask the courts to force you to seize money, and allows him to prove that it's possible.

It's not that clever.  A considerable portion of the value proposition of Bitcoin is that no one can seize your funds.  In the event it could be proven it's possible for people to file frivolous lawsuits and subsequently be awarded coins that don't belong to them, it would completely annihilate that value proposition.  The coins he would obtain in such an event would be worth very little after vast swathes of people abandon crypto for good and the entire crypto ecosystem goes into freefall.  Which is precisely why it's never going to happen. 

That's exactly what it would do, and that's exactly what he intends to do. I would like to believe that it's not going to happen, but right now I don't see anything that will stop it.

Yes, it would ruin bitcoin's value proposition. Bitcoin owners don't want that. But a court will make the decision. The court will rule in favor of the law, and bitcoin's value proposition isn't important to courts at all. If the court believes that bitcoin's value is partly due to its ability to facilitate crime by depriving lawful owners of their wealth when hackers or thieves have unlawfully acquired the private keys, then the court will enthusiastically smash that part of bitcoin's value proposition out of existence.

So many people here believe that Wright is motivated by money, or attention. No, no, no. Read his writings. He doesn't like attention and he isn't short of money. He wants power. He wants to destroy Bitcoin Core.

[odolvlobo]

That's exactly what it would do, and that's exactly what he intends to do. I would like to believe that it's not going to happen, but right now I don't see anything that will stop it.

As pointed out here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5320354.msg56454576#msg56454576), nothing will happen because Bitcoin Core devs cannot force people to use a particular version of the software.

[bitcoinstonk]

That's exactly what it would do, and that's exactly what he intends to do. I would like to believe that it's not going to happen, but right now I don't see anything that will stop it.

As pointed out here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5320354.msg56454576#msg56454576), nothing will happen because Bitcoin Core devs cannot force people to use a particular version of the software.

That is what they will argue in court. But Wright's lawyers will argue that it is normal practice in the software industry to require users to upgrade to a new version of the software in order to be able to continue using it. They will argue that hard forks have happened in the past. They will argue that upgrading to the next version of Bitcoin Core when it is released is what nearly all users will do. They will point to the Ethereum hard fork, which was performed in order to restore funds to their rightful owners, and which succeeded.

They will say that, yes, it is possible that some miners will continue to mine on the old chain and will refuse to upgrade. The court is not being asked to coerce those miners, and it is not being asked to coerce people to use a particular version of the software.

The court is only being asked to coerce the bitcoin devs to include a feature in future versions.

Bitcoin Core won't be required to coerce people to run the latest version of the software. They'll be required to include the code needed to comply with the court's ruling in future releases.

[DooMAD]

The court is only being asked to coerce the bitcoin devs to include a feature in future versions.

Bitcoin Core won't be required to coerce people to run the latest version of the software. They'll be required to include the code needed to comply with the court's ruling in future releases.

That's skipping a few steps, though.  First the court has to establish jurisdiction to see if any rulings could feasibly be enforced.  Good luck with that.

Then, Faketoshi would have to convince the court the coins are actually his.  He doesn't have a particularly strong track record of winning the court's favour with his conduct and total lack of credible evidence.  Again, good luck there.

My guess is that he's totally reliant on the threat of litigation.  He just wants everyone to cave in to his silly demands.  He doesn't have a case.

[bitcoinstonk]

The court is only being asked to coerce the bitcoin devs to include a feature in future versions.

Bitcoin Core won't be required to coerce people to run the latest version of the software. They'll be required to include the code needed to comply with the court's ruling in future releases.

That's skipping a few steps, though.  First the court has to establish jurisdiction to see if any rulings could feasibly be enforced.  Good luck with that.

Then, Faketoshi would have to convince the court the coins are actually his.  He doesn't have a particularly strong track record of winning the court's favour with his conduct and total lack of credible evidence.  Again, good luck there.

My guess is that he's totally reliant on the threat of litigation.  He just wants everyone to cave in to his silly demands.  He doesn't have a case.

He certainly does want people to cave into his demands. But for Core to cave in, they would need to hard wire an unsigned transaction into the code, which would be disastrous, whether they did it voluntarily or were forced by the court.

I don't think he's telling the truth, but I do think he's thought it out carefully. His story was engineered to make the court case possible. Looking at the elements of his story:

* He says his computer was hacked and the keys were deleted and the hackers didn't take the money, they just left it at that address. This is extremely unlikely to be factual, but it's perfect for bringing this case. If the coins had been moved by hackers, there would be no way to seize them without taking money from people who are likely innocent. The coins would have been split up and moved to multiple addresses and moved again from there. Seizing them would require seizing funds from lots of different addresses, and the people who owned those addresses would most likely be people who bought bitcoins legitimately from an exchange. So to bring the case, he needed the coins to not move.

* He claims to be the victim of a crime. If he had just said, "I lost the keys", then he wouldn't be able to belligerently make demands. He'd be admitting that it's his own fault that he no longer has access to them. In fact, if he's telling the truth, it is his own fault. He knew that keeping private keys on a computer connected to the internet, and not keeping a paper copy, is insecure and can lead to loss of funds. He knew his hard drive could have failed. He didn't memorize a seed phrase for his private keys. In practice, he just lost his keys and forgot the information that would let him recover them. It's entirely due to his own negligence that he no longer has access to that money.

* He says the wallets were owned by Tulip Trading Ltd, and not by him personally. This is important, because corporate ownership of assets is established through documentation, not possession. When Tulip became the owners of the bitcoins at the address, it happened through paperwork, not through a bitcoin transaction. He will just have to show that paperwork. Tulip Trading Ltd will have a copy of a contract which shows that they paid shares or fiat money for the coins at that address. There is nobody else who claims to be the real owner of that address. Yes, there are people who claim to be entitled to some of the money, but they don't claim to be the legitimate owners of the key to that address. Tulip paid for that address and the coins at it, and they have the receipts, and the ownership is uncontested. That may very well be sufficient for the judge to dismiss any claims that they're not the rightful owners.

About jurisdiction, I think he's in a strong position, because, according to his story, he was a victim of a crime committed in the UK, and the UK courts are the correct venue for that case. Because he'll just be asking the courts to coerce the bitcoin devs, and those devs will be represented by lawyers standing in front of the judge, it would not go down well at all to try to argue that the judge can't enforce his rulings. That would be like saying to the judge, "We're not going to do what you say, and you can't force us." That's not a wise thing to say to a judge.

Right now, I think the best argument would be to say that he accepted the terms of the MIT license, which states in part:

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.

and that his claim is that, contrary to the terms of the license, the authors are obliged to rectify losses he incurred due to his own negligence. And that granting him the relief he seeks would invalidate the MIT license and expose all authors of open-source software to liability for the unforeseeable consequences of negligence by users. In bitcoin's case, it would mean that anybody who lost their keys or forgot their password could sue the developers.

[bitcoinstonk]

Right now, I think the best argument would be to say that he accepted the terms of the MIT license, which states in part:

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.

and that his claim is that, contrary to the terms of the license, the authors are obliged to rectify losses he incurred due to his own negligence. And that granting him the relief he seeks would invalidate the MIT license and expose all authors of open-source software to liability for the unforeseeable consequences of negligence by users. In bitcoin's case, it would mean that anybody who lost their keys or forgot their password could sue the developers.

I am very unhappy to say that there may be a problem with this argument. I had believed that Wright would not claim to be the original author of bitcoin in this case. I thought it would just weaken his case and make it easier to disprove his claims. I thought that he would just claim to be a victim of crime entitled to restitution. But it appears that Ontier LLP is asserting that Wright is the original author.

In this article:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/c2-a335-billion-bitcoin-stolen-recoverable-hope-for-thousands-of-others/ar-BB1dYUEt
it says:

>Paul Ferguson, partner at ONTIER LLP, comments:
>
>    "Our client always intended Bitcoin to operate within existing laws, notwithstanding the original ethos of independence he envisaged for the digital currency.
>
>    We assert there are identifiable legal obligations attributable to those who develop and control Bitcoin. As a victim of theft of some serious magnitude, Tulip Trading is seeking recovery of its access to and control of its digital assets from those in a position to remedy its loss."
>
> The fact that someone has stolen Tulip Trading's digitally-held private Bitcoin keys does not prevent developers from deploying code to enable the rightful owner to regain control of its bitcoin.

This strongly suggests that Ontier will claim that Wright is the author of the software he was using to manage his keys and interact with the bitcoin blockchain. This means that, according to their claims, Wright did not accept the terms of the MIT license when he used the software. He didn't need a license because he was the author. That would mean that he never agreed that "in no event shall the authors or copyright holders be liable ...". Only people who acquired the right to use the software by accepting the license have agreed to that. If he has a right to use the software without accepting the license, then he is not bound by the terms of the license.

We need to distinguish between two instances of the bitcoin software. One is the software written and published by Bitcoin Core. If he has used that software, he is bound by the terms of the license, because there's no other way for him to acquire the right to use it.

But the other software is software that he claims to have written himself. He can use that software without accepting the terms of the MIT license, even if he distributed it under that license. As the author, he has the right to use the software he wrote, and he doesn't need to accept the terms of the license under which it's distributed to other users.

Importantly, he doesn't need to prove that he is Satoshi Nakamoto to get the court to accept this. He only needs the court to accept that he wrote the software he used. He might have written it himself, and yet not be Satoshi Nakamoto. Proving that he is not Satoshi Nakamoto, or that he had no involvement in the original development of bitcoin, won't be sufficient to bind him to the terms of the license. He could have written that software at any time prior to his alleged loss of his keys.

It's likely that he will be able to show the code of the software he claims to have used, and that software will have been written by him and by nChain and by Tulip. So his lawyers will be able to argue that the MIT license doesn't protect Bitcoin Core from his claims that they are obliged to comply with his demands by "deploying code to enable the rightful owner to regain control of its bitcoin", because he never accepted that license.

So his claim will have to be that the authors of Bitcoin Core, which is software that he never used, owe him a duty because of their power to help him recoup his losses, and that it's because he never used that software and never agreed to the terms of the license that that duty still exists.

But I think that it's very very likely that, at some time in the past, Wright, or an employee of one of his companies, downloaded and ran either the Bitcoin Core software, or some related software. For example, Bitcoin Cash forked away from Bitcoin Core in 2017, and Bitcoin SV forked in 2018. During the time when Bitcoin Cash existed and Bitcoin SV didn't, the Bitcoin Cash code was not written by Wright or by any of his companies, and there was no way for him to be able to use it without accepting the MIT license.

It also seems very unlikely to me that Wright wrote his own implementation of segwit. And yet he was allegedly using software that allowed him to use bitcoin successfully in 2020. Segwit was a soft-fork, so this is theoretically possible. He could have been running antique software that didn't notice that segwit was now everywhere and obligatory.

I think Craig Wright needs to be asked to swear under penalty of perjury that neither he nor any or his employees have ever used, modified or distributed bitcoin software that they did not write themselves, even for testing purposes. He needs to explain how his company, nChain, mined a record-setting 23Mb block on the Bitcoin Cash blockchain in September of 2018, without using any software written by the Bitcoin Cash developers, built on code written by Bitcoin Core.

If he used Bitcoin Core software even once, for curiosity or testing or any other reason, then he accepted the MIT license, and he accepted the terms, which prevent him from holding the developers liable for anything.

A single witness who testifies that Bitcoin Core software, or Bitcoin Cash software based on it, was used, modified or distributed by Wright or Tulip, may be sufficient to convince the court that the license was accepted, and that the developers can't be held liable. Bitcoin SV appears on its face to be a version of Bitcoin Core modified and distributed by people associated with Wright. This could not have been done without accepting the terms of the license. If that happened at his instruction, then he is bound by the terms of the license.