Craig Wright's Latest Escapade -- Give me the bitcoins I stole from Mt. Gox!

[odolvlobo]

Craig Wright (aka Faketoshi) is once again making legal threats that can only be described as absurd.

In this round, his law firm sent letters to developers and organizations involved with BTC, BCH, BCHABC, and BSV, claiming that the developers must give him access to the coins at two addresses or face legal action. According to the letter, hackers managed to obtain the private keys to these two addresses on February 5, 2020 and then erase the originals.

1. One of the addresses appears to hold bitcoins stolen from Mt. Gox. Why would Faketoshi implicate himself in the theft of bitcoins from Mt. Gox?
2. Apparently, Faketoshi couldn't be bothered to back up private keys containing millions of dollars worth of bitcoins. That fact damages the credibility of his claim.
3. The demand is impossible to fulfill, at least for the BTC and BCH chains.
4. A letter was sent to his own BSV developers.

Here are  the letters: https://www.ontier.net/ia/a1letter-before-action-from-ttl.pdf

Obviously, there must be some rational motive behind this. I can think of two possible motives:

1. The purpose is to establish the claim that Faketoshi once had a lot of bitcoins, but now he no longer has any. Perhaps this is preparation for the classic "I lost my keys in a boating accident" defense. It looks like he has lost the lawsuit by Ira Kleiman, so he will be on the hook for a lot of bitcoins, and he might be trying to plead poverty in order to avoid having to pay.

2. There are about 110,000 coins at those two addresses, and the BSV is worth about $20 million. He might be laying the legal (and moral) groundwork to justify confiscation of the BSV from those two addresses. That is something that he probably could pull off.

[androyster]

Craig Wright (aka Faketoshi) is once again making legal threats that can only be described as absurd.

In this round, his law firm sent letters to developers and organizations involved with BTC, BCH, BCHABC, and BSV, claiming that the developers must give him access to the coins at two addresses or face legal action. According to the letter, hackers managed to obtain the private keys to these two addresses on February 5, 2020 and then erase the originals.

1. One of the addresses appears to hold bitcoins stolen from Mt. Gox. Why would Faketoshi implicate himself in the theft of bitcoins from Mt. Gox?
2. Apparently, Faketoshi couldn't be bothered to back up the private keys to addresses containing millions of dollars worth of bitcoins.
3. The demand is impossible to fulfill, at least for the BTC and BCH chains.
4. A letter was sent to his own BSV developers.

Here are  the letters: https://www.ontier.net/ia/a1letter-before-action-from-ttl.pdf

Obviously, there must be some rational motive behind this. I can think of two possible motives:

1. The purpose is to establish the claim that Faketoshi once had a lot of bitcoins, but now he no longer has any. Perhaps this is preparation for the classic "I lost my keys in a boating accident" defense. It looks like he has lost the lawsuit by Ira Kleiman, so he will be on the hook for a lot of bitcoins, and he might be trying to plead poverty in order to avoid having to pay.

2. There are about 110,000 coins at those two addresses, and the BSV is worth about $20 million. He might be laying the legal (and moral) groundwork to justify confiscation of the BSV from those two addresses. That is something that he probably could pull off.

Without those keys he's screwed.  Good luck on that.

[fiulpro]

See the guy is an absolute nightmare.
The guy literally is doing that since years and everyone know that he stole those Bitcoins and even the court ordered for him to stop making such claims. He have no idea what he is doing to his image and to the whole image of Bitcoins itself. The more he does it the more it feels like the knee Mr. Satoshi very well and be knows that something bad had happened to him and he won't come and fight him about it. This is real dad the guy is extremely distressing for the community. I do think the Bitcoin firms should all try and make sure he does not continue with such lame excuses and things.
If he is Mr. Satoshi how does he not know "not your keys not your coins"
Why can't he log in from the account on the forum ?? This is immensely sad that people would do something like that to him. Honestly I don't even know why wiki explains him like this :

Craig Steven Wright is an Australian computer scientist and businessman. He has publicly claimed to be the main part of the team that created bitcoin, and the identity behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. These claims are regarded as false by much of the media and the cryptocurrency community

They should refrain from writing " he claims " but media says it's false!! No the court ruled he is a scammer what media are you talking about?

[Tytanowy Janusz]

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." Oh and you can fool no one if you are CW (AKA notorious liar, jester and man with mental issues)

Abraham Lincoln

[NathanielParker]

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." Oh and you can fool no one if you are CW (AKA notorious liar, jester and man with mental issues)

Abraham Lincoln

why does he has a law firm? who doesn't the government prove that he's Satoshi or not? since he can't log in that account and in view of all these lies, I do think he should be banned from anything about Satoshi! or maybe he and the government colluded to get bitcoin and other profits

[AGD]

Isn't there a way for somebody, who lost coins with the Mt Gox incident to file a report to the police? I would if I had.

[DapanasFruit]

Craig Wright is obviously very wrong on many things he had done, is doing and will probably do in the future. And I believe that his surname will one day be changed to Wrong, no more Wright. The man is probably thinking that since he is getting out of the limelight and that all people in the world of cryptocurrency must be needing some entertainment that is why he is pulling this latest big joke of his. Unfortunately, even the court is not allowing to be dragged by his shenanigans. Only fools like himself would believe the many claims he made in the past and more so of the things he will probably be claiming later. Still, am crediting him for such a very creative move, worthy of a movie in fact.

[bL4nkcode]

Isn't there a way for somebody, who lost coins with the Mt Gox incident to file a report to the police? I would if I had.

There are many users and many would do only if they can afford to take time (wasting) on court since I guess most of them can afford the fees.

[bitcoinstonk]

What Craig Wright is doing is very clever and very dangerous, and the Bitcoin Core team need to understand what he's doing and why.

He is *not* primarily trying to get the bitcoins back from the 1Feex address. That's just an excuse to file the lawsuit. His primary intention is to establish the legal precedent that courts can force the bitcoin developers to confiscate money from one address and give it to another address.

And he will succeed if the bitcoin developers don't prepare properly for the court proceedings. Here's what will happen unless the devs take it seriously and prepare good legal arguments:

* The devs will say it's technically impossible to give him access to those funds. They will be hoping that nobody understands bitcoin well enough to prove that it is in fact possible in a way that a court can understand, and they will try to create confusion in the hope that everybody will give up trying to understand.

* Wright named the Bitcoin SV developers as defendants for precisely this purpose. He will release a new version of the Bitcoin SV code that has an exception to the transaction verification rules for a single transaction paying from the 1Feex address to an address that he controls. The exception to the transaction verification rules will *not require a valid signature* from the 1Feex address. That transaction will be hard coded into the source code. It will be regarded as valid automatically, without a signature check.

* He will say to the court: Look, it is obviously possible. I did it. The Bitcoin Core devs can do the same thing.

* The devs will try to invent reasons why the same things can't be done with Bitcoin Core, and all of those reasons will be bullshit. They will be attempts to cause confusion, and they won't work. The reasons given will be either incomprehensible gibberish about obscure technical details, or they will be arguments that the users of the bitcoin software can choose what software to run, and they can't be forced to run software that breaks the existing rules for verifying transactions.

* Wright's lawyers will argue, successfully, that many updates have been made to the bitcoin software that change the rules for processing transactions, and that updates are made on an ongoing basis. They will argue, successfully, that nothing prevents Bitcoin Core from adding an exception for a single transaction to a new update. Core will argue that doing that will cause a fork in the blockchain, as old versions of the software will reject the new transaction as invalid and will reject every block containing it and subsequent blocks. Wright's lawyers will argue that requiring users to upgrade to the latest version of software in order to continue using it is normal and does not cause catastrophic system failure of the type that Core are claiming will happen.

* Wright's lawyers will be correct, and they will win. The court will find that the Bitcoin Core devs have the power to release new versions of the software and announce to users that upgrading is mandatory for the software to continue to operate successfully.

* The court may or may not require Core to actually do this in the case of the 1Feex address. Wright may or may not be awarded those coins. But he doesn't care about that. That's not what he's trying to accomplish.

* The true reason that Core devs would never seize and use the power to confiscate funds from one address and give it to another without a valid signed transaction is *principle*. It is extremely harmful to Bitcoin for anybody to have that power. But the court will rule that the principles of Law override the principles of good money. The court will rule that in cases where the law requires that assets be taken from one person and given to another, the Core devs must do that, because they *do* have that power, even if they don't want that power and don't want to use it.

This is very bad. It is a serious mistake to laugh at Craig Wright and ignore what he's trying to do. Courts and governments all over the world will begin issuing demands to the Bitcoin Core devs to take money from one address and give it to another address, under penalty of being held in contempt of court and imprisoned until they comply.

His claims about having his keys stolen and losing access to that address are most likely false. They're just an excuse to bring a case before a court and get the court to rule that the Core devs have the power to seize bitcoins, by hard coding transaction verification exceptions into the code. That's the real motivation, and it's a real threat.

[Searing]

I've always said this about the case against him by the Dave Kleiman estate going on.

He will claim the following on that if he wins or loses

1) He wins the case and not enough evidence that he ripped off Dave Kleiman back in the day, he will 'say' proves
he is Satoshi in that why would the Dave Kleiman estate state so and spend big bucks to take him to court.

2) He will say if he loses the case and is told to pay the Kleiman Estate that this proves he is Satoshi...even as
he runs to a U.K. country without extradition on civil USA court manners such as this.

The same thing, if he 'loses' the case on BTC with Mt.Gox estate...well nothing changes...but if they 'settle' again
proves I am Satoshi he claims...if nothing else in the news again to 'so doubt' that I'm coming after you with
stupid lawsuits.

Also with the websites taking down the www pages with the white paper on them. If they do so 'great' this proves he has power and could be Satoshi on them...if they don't take it down (and small enough) the white paper, then he can sue the site..which can't afford to fight his claims. (in the USA anyway).
if...people then send $$$ to the site to offset $$$ he spends to sue them...proves he is Satoshi because if a 'non-issue'
why the big deal about keeping a web page up on the white paper if he is not Satoshi...if they take it down
proves I'm Satoshi

the list goes on ..hard to 'disprove' a negative and he really has to keep this game going to keep out of Aussie
Tax Jail. So rinse/wash/repeat.

Round and Round it goes...I suppose if he was to 'pass-on' he would have 'enough' relatives convinced he 'is' Satoshi for this to
continue....the cycle of lawsuits.

what a cluster...

Brad

[20kevin20]

He already has a lost case - the man is clearly desperate to "legally" steal coins from anyone he possibly could, but I only see his cases and defense getting worse as time passes. At this point, it's literally impossible to check his lawsuits without noticing how desperate of a thief he is.

Whatever happens, I do not think there is any way he could truly prove anything of substance so in the end, the only bad thing that possibly happens is.. He only gets more BSV fans to back him up. That's it. In the history books, he will be noted but under the name of Craingelord (see what I did there?) and the worst pretender in the crypto world.

All in all, he's a douche and nothing will go as planned. I mean, I still have a little hope that someone will crack his imbecile plans one day...

[odolvlobo]

...
* The devs will say it's technically impossible to give him access to those funds. They will be hoping that nobody understands bitcoin well enough to prove that it is in fact possible in a way that a court can understand, and they will try to create confusion in the hope that everybody will give up trying to understand.

* Wright named the Bitcoin SV developers as defendants for precisely this purpose. He will release a new version of the Bitcoin SV code that has an exception to the transaction verification rules for a single transaction paying from the 1Feex address to an address that he controls. The exception to the transaction verification rules will *not require a valid signature* from the 1Feex address. That transaction will be hard coded into the source code. It will be regarded as valid automatically, without a signature check.

* He will say to the court: Look, it is obviously possible. I did it. The Bitcoin Core devs can do the same thing.
...

It is not "technically impossible", but it is practically infeasible.

He doesn't even need the Bitcoin Core devs to make changes to Bitcoin Core. He can fork the repository and make the changes to Bitcoin Core himself. Then, he can use his version to claim the bitcoins from those addresses himself. Nobody will care because he will be on his own fork of the Bitcoin chain as soon as he does that.

In order to succeed, the court must order the owners of every node in the world (including miners) to use his version of Bitcoin Core. That is practically infeasible.

Bitcoin SV is a different situation. I don't think he will have any problem getting the changes into the Bitcoin SV reference client. The question here is, will users (especially exchanges) follow his fork? They might, but he will have the same problem as with Bitcoin Core if they don't.

[androyster]

...
* The devs will say it's technically impossible to give him access to those funds. They will be hoping that nobody understands bitcoin well enough to prove that it is in fact possible in a way that a court can understand, and they will try to create confusion in the hope that everybody will give up trying to understand.

* Wright named the Bitcoin SV developers as defendants for precisely this purpose. He will release a new version of the Bitcoin SV code that has an exception to the transaction verification rules for a single transaction paying from the 1Feex address to an address that he controls. The exception to the transaction verification rules will *not require a valid signature* from the 1Feex address. That transaction will be hard coded into the source code. It will be regarded as valid automatically, without a signature check.

* He will say to the court: Look, it is obviously possible. I did it. The Bitcoin Core devs can do the same thing.
...

It is not "technically impossible", but it is practically infeasible.

He doesn't even need the Bitcoin Core devs to make changes to Bitcoin Core. He can fork the repository and make the changes to Bitcoin Core himself. Then, he can use his version to claim the bitcoins from those addresses himself. Nobody will care because he will be on his own fork of the Bitcoin chain as soon as he does that.

In order to succeed, the court must order the owners of every node in the world (including miners) to use his version of Bitcoin Core. That is practically infeasible.

Bitcoin SV is a different situation. I don't think he will have any problem getting the changes into the Bitcoin SV reference client. The question here is, will users (especially exchanges) follow his fork? They might, but he will have the same problem as with Bitcoin Core if they don't.

I'm a miner, no way in hell would I be forced to do crap.  I'll shoot them all  with my legal machine guns before that happens.

[bitcoinstonk]

It is not "technically impossible", but it is practically infeasible.

He doesn't even need the Bitcoin Core devs to make changes to Bitcoin Core. He can fork the repository and make the changes to Bitcoin Core himself. Then, he can use his version to claim the bitcoins from those addresses himself. Nobody will care because he will be on his own fork of the Bitcoin chain as soon as he does that.

In order to succeed, the court must order the owners of every node in the world (including miners) to use his version of Bitcoin Core. That is practically infeasible.

Bitcoin SV is a different situation. I don't think he will have any problem getting the changes into the Bitcoin SV reference client. The question here is, will users (especially exchanges) follow his fork? They might, but he will have the same problem as with Bitcoin Core if they don't.

I'm afraid this is where it's not going to be possible to deceive the court. The court will understand immediately that the power to decide what software people run when they use Bitcoin Core is held by the Bitcoin Core devs.

If Bitcoin Core releases a new version of the software, it will be the official software from the official maintainers of Bitcoin Core, and that is what people will run when they're using bitcoin.

Indeed, he can make his own version of it, and nobody will use it. They will use the official releases from Bitcoin Core. The court will understand this. The court will understand that in order to give Wright the relief he claims, Bitcoin Core will need to be coerced to change their software. The court will understand that asking Wright to make a copy of the software and make the desired modifications to it is not an acceptable substitute for coercing Bitcoin Core to include it in the official release of the software.

[AGD]

OK. Exactly what I was saying a few posts earlier:

https://twitter.com/BtcDanny/status/1364729604863389696

Guy who lost Bitcoins at Mt Gox takes CSW's claims serious and issues legal notice to him over stolen funds in 1Feex address.
Certainly others will follow, just for the sake of shutting down the troll.

[bryant.coleman]

I always believed that both Mark Karpeles and Craig Wright had some involvement in the Mt Gox robbery. Back then, the total worth of coins that were stolen were estimated at around $450 million (BTC650,000). As per the current exchange rates, the value of the coins that were stolen back then has increased to around $30 billion. I feel bad for the users who lost their life savings in this robbery. I was fortunate not to store my coins in Mt Gox, but still lost some mBTC.

7 years have passed since this incident, and the victims are yet to receive any sort of compensation. Some BTC200,000 were recovered from the cold wallets, but the majority of this stash was sold off at very low prices by Nobuaki Kobayashi (Mt Gox bankruptcy trustee). Some of the people who lost their money has committed suicide. At least now, they should reimburse what is remaining in the cold wallets to the victims of the robbery.

[20kevin20]

Well, maybe it was just Craig's lawyers getting sick of him and willing to screw him all over. Has any of Craig's moves been rational..? All he's ever done was only redeem his stupidity over and over.

Say his action succeeds and he legally gets to basically enforce a change in Bitcoin Core. Don't the rest of us just all fork off the chain, redeeming his coins worthless? Even if something happens to any of us, he forgets that we're in a decentralized environment where every attempt of manipulation and control can be forked off into a worthless garbage blockchain.

[odolvlobo]

I'm afraid this is where it's not going to be possible to deceive the court. The court will understand immediately that the power to decide what software people run when they use Bitcoin Core is held by the Bitcoin Core devs.
If Bitcoin Core releases a new version of the software, it will be the official software from the official maintainers of Bitcoin Core, and that is what people will run when they're using bitcoin.

There is no need for deception. In the unlikely scenario in which Bitcoin Core developers are somehow coerced into publishing a version for CSW, then what happens if they attach this disclaimer:

We are required to release this version, but we recommend that you do not use it.

The court can't stop them from saying that.

[Obito]

Well, maybe it was just Craig's lawyers getting sick of him and willing to screw him all over. Has any of Craig's moves been rational..? All he's ever done was only redeem his stupidity over and over.

Say his action succeeds and he legally gets to basically enforce a change in Bitcoin Core. Don't the rest of us just all fork off the chain, redeeming his coins worthless? Even if something happens to any of us, he forgets that we're in a decentralized environment where every attempt of manipulation and control can be forked off into a worthless garbage blockchain.

Why would the lawyers get sick of what he is doing, they are after the money and in my opinion, they loved that CSW is doing this kind of shenanigans because this means they get paid for their services. I don't think that he will win this because those bitcoin that was lost in his care should be payed if he were to in a strange way, won this case.

[NotATether]

1. One of the addresses appears to hold bitcoins stolen from Mt. Gox. Why would Faketoshi implicate himself in the theft of bitcoins from Mt. Gox?

He's fully aware that he's claiming to own stolen coins and frankly it makes me wonder why law enforcement isn't hounding him for "admitting" that.

It's almost as if a lawsuit about this petty threat is a higher priority to them than the stolen Mt Gox BTC and it's quite damning that exchanges and custodial services can pull exit scams and the worst they get is a scammer tag on bitcointalk (if they even have a presence there).

[DooMAD]

I always believed that (...) Craig Wright had some involvement in the Mt Gox robbery.

But why?  Faketoshi is always desperate to be perceived as someone who has been a significant part of Bitcoin's history.  But so far, all he's proven is that he's an absolute nobody and doesn't matter in the slightest.  Prior to emergence of all the forkcoins, there's no evidence to show he has contributed to any of Bitcoin's major events.  Why would Gox be any different to all the other lies he's told?  It's just one fabrication after another.  Never anything of substance to back it up.

[Wind_FURY]

There are two plaintiffs in the case, Craig Wright, and someone named Cory Fields. A simple Google search brings this link, it’s Cory Fields’ profile, https://dci.mit.edu/cory-fields

It says that he’s a Bitcoin Core developer, “cory fields | bitcoin core developer”.

Can anyone confirm if he is. gmax? achow?

[bitcoinstonk]

What Craig Wright is doing is very clever and very dangerous, and the Bitcoin Core team need to understand what he's doing and why.

He is *not* primarily trying to get the bitcoins back from the 1Feex address. That's just an excuse to file the lawsuit. His primary intention is to establish the legal precedent that courts can force the bitcoin developers to confiscate money from one address and give it to another address.

And he will succeed if the bitcoin developers don't prepare properly for the court proceedings. Here's what will happen unless the devs take it seriously and prepare good legal arguments:

* The devs will say it's technically impossible to give him access to those funds. They will be hoping that nobody understands bitcoin well enough to prove that it is in fact possible in a way that a court can understand, and they will try to create confusion in the hope that everybody will give up trying to understand.

...

* The devs will try to invent reasons why the same things can't be done with Bitcoin Core, and all of those reasons will be bullshit. They will be attempts to cause confusion, and they won't work. The reasons given will be either incomprehensible gibberish about obscure technical details, or they will be arguments that the users of the bitcoin software can choose what software to run, and they can't be forced to run software that breaks the existing rules for verifying transactions.

* Wright's lawyers will argue, successfully, that many updates have been made to the bitcoin software that change the rules for processing transactions, and that updates are made on an ongoing basis. They will argue, successfully, that nothing prevents Bitcoin Core from adding an exception for a single transaction to a new update. Core will argue that doing that will cause a fork in the blockchain, as old versions of the software will reject the new transaction as invalid and will reject every block containing it and subsequent blocks. Wright's lawyers will argue that requiring users to upgrade to the latest version of software in order to continue using it is normal and does not cause catastrophic system failure of the type that Core are claiming will happen.

* Wright's lawyers will be correct, and they will win. The court will find that the Bitcoin Core devs have the power to release new versions of the software and announce to users that upgrading is mandatory for the software to continue to operate successfully.

This has now happened. The court understands that the Core devs have the power to update the bitcoin code to make it treat a non-signed transaction as valid. The court also understands that it has the power to compel the Core devs to do that. This is bad.

Even if Wright loses this case, future courts can reference the judgment that was handed down on Friday. Criminal cases, sanctions, and even tax liabilities could result in the devs being dragged into court and possibly ordered to fork the blockchain in the future.

The strongest defense that I see right now is the argument that bitcoin owners and miners will rebel and refuse to use any new version that treats unsigned transactions as valid. The court needs to be convinced that this rebellion is very likely to occur, causing material financial harm to bitcoin users. The best ways that I can think of to present this to the court are:

* Explain that Craig Wright is a controversial figure who is widely hated and widely regarded as a scammer. A new version of the bitcoin software that violates the widely-loved principles of bitcoin for his benefit alone will not be regarded by the bitcoin community as a standard software update. It will not be possible to "slip it in" to the next software upgrade without users noticing.

* Explain that Ethereum users rebelled and created Ethereum Classic after an upgrade was released to remedy the DAO hack. Bitcoin users are even more committed to their principles than Ethereum users.

* Bitcoin has already forked because of segwit. Segwit was an extremely minor departure from the original bitcoin protocol. Hard-coding unsigned transactions is an extremely serious violation of the principles of bitcoin. It would be naive and negligent for the court to presume that no rebellion would occur in response to this violation.

* Bitcoin users would be asked to choose between a version of bitcoin in which their funds could not be confiscated by courts and a version in which they could. Bitcoin users do not hold courts in such high regard that they would willingly grant the courts the ability to seize their assets.

* The bitcoin community has a vision of a future in which bitcoin changes the balance of power in the world in favor of the people instead of the privileged and powerful. To grant Wright the relief he seeks, the court would need to rely on the cooperation of bitcoin users, who would be asked to sacrifice this vision. The court's ruling would be perceived by bitcoin users as an attempt to deprive future humanity of freedom and justice, and to perpetuate the rule of those who currently abuse power. It does not matter whether the court agrees with this perception. The court needs the cooperation of current bitcoin users to grant Wright the relief he seeks.

* To make these facts undeniable in the understanding of the court, the Core devs should invite relevant stakeholders including miners, holders, prominent figures and representatives of industry to submit Amicus Curiae briefs, explaining that these facts are true.

[nutildah]

This has now happened.

Yet its been 2 years and the 1Feex BSV hasn't moved.

The court also understands that it has the power to compel the Core devs to do that. This is bad.

That's not what was said by the judge. Read his words for yourself.

The judge merely pondered over whether or not the developers owed bitcoin users "fiduciary duties." Even if this matter is settled in their favor, Tulip Trading would still have to prove the 1Feex coins belonged to them, which they cannot do. Even if they somehow could prove it (they can't), the judge would still need to rule that developers make the changes, and as all of them do not fall under jurisdiction of the court, there is no way to make them comply. Even if the devs did comply, there is no way to make users comply.

This isn't bad. This is irrelevant.

The court needs to be convinced that this rebellion is very likely to occur, causing material financial harm to bitcoin users.

Nobody within bitcoin owes "the court" one second of their time. This is a giant nothingburger.

[bitcoinstonk]

Yet its been 2 years and the 1Feex BSV hasn't moved.

Indeed. The Core devs have not argued that it's technically impossible to do. If they had done that, then Wright would have moved the BSV funds using a hard fork and a non-signed transaction to prove that it is possible.

The judge merely pondered over whether or not the developers owed bitcoin users "fiduciary duties." Even if this matter is settled in their favor, Tulip Trading would still have to prove the 1Feex coins belonged to them, which they cannot do. Even if they somehow could prove it (they can't), the judge would still need to rule that developers make the changes, and as all of them do not fall under jurisdiction of the court, there is no way to make them comply. Even if the devs did comply, there is no way to make users comply.

Yes, but Wright is claiming that they have fiduciary duties to get the court to consider the question of whether bitcoins can be seized by coercing the Core devs to hard fork the code to accept a particular non-signed transaction.

The point is that courts and governments around the world don't yet know that they have this power. They think bitcoin can't be seized because everyone says it can't. But it can, by coercing the Core devs.

Wright is trying to get the courts and governments of the world to understand this. I'm sure he'd be very happy if he won the case, but even if he loses the case, he'll achieve his goal if he gets governments to understand that they can seize bitcoins.

The devs aren't going to defy a court order. They're not criminals or fugitives. They're law-abiding citizens in good standing and they really want to stay that way.

If the court rules that the devs must hard fork and include a non-signed transaction, then they'll do it.

Some of the users will use it and some will refuse and will keep using the previous version. The two competing versions would have different blockchains after the block where the fork happened, but transactions on one chain could be replayed on the other one, as long as the coins didn't come from Craig Wright's address.

If Wright never moves the funds that he received in the non-signed transaction, then every other user's balance will be identical on the two different chains. It wouldn't make a difference if you upgraded or not.

The person who would have the ability to make balances different on the two chains would be Craig Wright. He'd have all the bitcoins that are valid on one chain and invalid on the other. He could send some of those to any other bitcoin address, and cause a difference between that address's balances on the two chains.

That would be what would happen if the people who refuse to use the new version don't change their code to prevent transaction replays. They would be the ones who would need to fork. They'd make a new coin, probably called bitcoin classic.

[nutildah]

If the court rules that the devs must hard fork and include a non-signed transaction, then they'll do it.

I'm not so sure about that. First of all, what authority does a UK court have over 12 non-UK based developers?

You're approaching this from a viewpoint that includes several foregone conclusions, many of which I don't think will manifest the way you seem to be certain they will.

"Governments can seize bitcoins" is a giant stretch from what has actually transpired in this one particular court thus far.

Again, for this to be possible, miners and nodes need to use the forked client, and users need to transact on it. This is literally impossible to enforce, let alone getting the developers to go along with it in the first place.

A hugely wasteful endeavor of everybody's time and resources except for those desperately trying to keep the price of BSV from falling into oblivion. It sank to all-time lows just 3 months ago and is just hovering above them now. Per usual from the BSV camp, the whole ploy reeks of desperation.

[bitcoinstonk]

I'm not so sure about that. First of all, what authority does a UK court have over 12 non-UK based developers?

US courts will enforce foreign judgments if they satisfy the right conditions. The ruling in the UK is likely to be enforceable in the US.

"Governments can seize bitcoins" is a giant stretch from what has actually transpired in this one particular court thus far.

Indeed, it hasn't happened, but if Wright wins, then it will have happened. Every government will become aware that bitcoins have been seized and bitcoins can be seized.

Again, for this to be possible, miners and nodes need to use the forked client, and users need to transact on it. This is literally impossible to enforce, let alone getting the developers to go along with it in the first place.

Businesses will accept Wright's version of bitcoin or he'll sue them and win.

[nutildah]

Businesses will accept Wright's version of bitcoin or he'll sue them and win.

Again, a totally unenforceable claim. This happening is based on several assumptions all manifesting in miraculous, odds-defying alignment.

This is just more of the weird, threat-based hopium manufactured by the Wright camp that has never actually worked. The dude has been exposed as a fraud countless times, owned six ways from Sunday by people who actually know what they're talking about for years.

Why would anybody continue to believe he has a shred of credibility at this point?

Any sort of pump or positive traction generated by Wright's antics was based on outright lies. I'm pretty certain BSV would have been better off ditching him years ago. They could have shaken their association with Faketoshi by now and been simply known as the Bitcoin that stuffs data in really big blocks.

To give weight to yet another legal technicality-based charade is nonsensical at this point. It defies all logic given Wright's terrible track record in the courts.

[bitcoinstonk]

If he wins, the Core devs are likely to be unable to act as devs for the version of bitcoin that doesn't include Wright's unsigned transaction.

He would sue them if they did that, claiming that they're violating their fiduciary duty to protect the value of his bitcoins.

It would need to be a new team.

[bitcoinstonk]

Businesses will accept Wright's version of bitcoin or he'll sue them and win.

Again, a totally unenforceable claim. This happening is based on several assumptions all manifesting in miraculous, odds-defying alignment.

That would happen assuming that he won. He likes to sue people. If Coinbase says that they're not accepting his bitcoins, what do you think he'll do?

This is just more of the weird, threat-based hopium manufactured by the Wright camp that has never actually worked. The dude has been exposed as a fraud countless times, owned six ways from Sunday by people who actually know what they're talking about for years.

It doesn't matter what hasn't worked before. The court is allowing the case to proceed because three judges agreed that Wright has a significant chance of winning.

Why would anybody continue to believe he has a shred of credibility at this point?

The courts are taking him seriously because he has lawyers and is preparing his cases carefully.

Any sort of pump or positive traction generated by Wright's antics was based on outright lies.

There have certainly been a lot of lies involved. Wright's whole story about getting hacked is obviously a lie. But it's a lie that allows him to bring this case.

[nutildah]

It doesn't matter what hasn't worked before. The court is allowing the case to proceed because three judges agreed that Wright has a significant chance of winning.

No, that is not what was said at all. They're saying it is worth discussing the idea that cryptocurrency developers should bear some sort of fiduciary responsibility to their investors/users. And what jurisdiction does this actually apply to even if the answer was "yes, they do"?

There have certainly been a lot of lies involved. Wright's whole story about getting hacked is obviously a lie. But it's a lie that allows him to bring this case.

Never a great basis to hang one's hat on during a legal proceeding 

But at least you can recognize it was lie.

[bitcoinstonk]

It doesn't matter what hasn't worked before. The court is allowing the case to proceed because three judges agreed that Wright has a significant chance of winning.

No, that is not what was said at all. They're saying it is worth discussing the idea that cryptocurrency developers should bear some sort of fiduciary responsibility to their investors/users.

Lord Justice Birss wrote:
"there is, it seems to me, a realistic argument along the following lines. The developers of a given network are a sufficiently well defined group to be capable of being subject to fiduciary duties. Viewed objectively the developers have undertaken a role which involves making discretionary decisions and exercising power for and on behalf of other people, in relation to property owned by those other people. That property has been entrusted into the care of the developers. The developers therefore are fiduciaries. The essence of that duty is single minded loyalty to the users of the bitcoin software. The content of the duties includes a duty not to act in their own self interest and also involves a duty to act in positive ways in certain circumstances. It may also, realistically, include a duty to act to introduce code so that an owner's bitcoin can be transferred to safety in the circumstances alleged by Tulip."

Lord Justice Popplewell wrote:
I agree

Lord Justice Lewison wrote:
I agree

And what jurisdiction does this actually apply to even if the answer was "yes, they do"?

This falls under property law, and ownership of property is recognized and enforced worldwide. Courts in one country will recognize ownership of property even if that property was acquired in a different country. Wright can reasonably expect US courts to recognize his ownership of those bitcoins if he legally acquired them in the UK as a consequence of a UK court ruling.

[DaveF]

...everything bitcoinstonk has said....

NO NO AND NO

There are 1000s and 1000s of cases (probably 100s of 1000s) of where foreign courts have ordered things and every court in every other county said nope not going to happen.
There is not a criminal case, and more importantly there is no international agreement of even how to handle crypto. Is it physical property (painting), is it a financial asset (bond) is it physical currency (gold coin) and so on. Stop being a BSV shill / believer and go back to your hole in the ground.

CW is just a scammer, and every time anybody posts thing supporting a scammer like him you are supporting him.

This will grind it's way through the courts and he will loose.

Don't go away mad, just go away.

-Dave

[nutildah]

You cut out a couple hundred words between the paragraph you quoted and the judges saying "I agree."

They are not agreeing to the line of thinking you quoted, they are agreeing with the conclusion, which says this:

"The conclusion is not that there is a fiduciary duty in law in the circumstances alleged by Tulip, only that the case advanced raises a serious issue to be tried. The time to decide on the duty in this case is once the facts are established...

If the decentralised governance of bitcoin really is a myth, then in my judgment there is much to be said for the submission that bitcoin developers, while acting as developers, owe fiduciary duties to the true owners of that property."

The only thing being agreed upon is that Tulip Trust deserves an appeal because there are legal uncertainties that have yet to be fleshed out.

Your claim about property law commanding bitcoin devs to modify their software isn't based in any sort of tangible reality that currently exists today. It is based on wishful thinking that everything will unfold the way you believe it will.

Part of this also includes Craig proving to the court that he is the real owner of the 1Feex... coins, which he cannot possibly do.

[bitcoinstonk]

This will grind it's way through the courts and he will loose.

I hope you're right. But he's not going to lose if the Core devs are flippant and ignore the need to convince the courts.

This is a time to be serious and not engage in wishful thinking. This is a threat.

You don't like that. I understand. I don't like it either. You want to go back to sleep. Okay.

The only thing being agreed upon is that Tulip Trust deserves an appeal because there are legal uncertainties that have yet to be fleshed out.

Yes, and those legal uncertainties, when fleshed out, may "realistically" result in the devs being required to include code that moves bitcoins without a signature.

Your claim about property law commanding bitcoin devs to modify their software isn't based in any sort of tangible reality that currently exists today. It is based on wishful thinking that everything will unfold the way you believe it will.

I'm afraid not. This is fearful thinking, not wishful thinking. This is a threat. It needs to be stopped. Ignoring it is wishful thinking.

Part of this also includes Craig proving to the court that he is the real owner of the 1Feex... coins, which he cannot possibly do.

It's not him that he's claiming is the owner. It's Tulip. That's a corporation. Corporations acquire property through paperwork, not through bitcoin transactions. What he has to show the courts is paperwork, and they'll be satisfied. He'll show documents stating that ownership of that address and the funds at it have been legally transferred to Tulip.

The ownership is uncontested. Nobody else claims to own the bitcoins at that address. The court will see that the ownership is uncontested and Wright has receipts. Those are strong enough grounds to accept that Wright is the owner. If you contend that someone else owns them, you are free to present your evidence to the court.


How will courts and governments view Wright's case when considering their own interests?

If Wright wins, courts and governments will get control of bitcoin. If he loses, they won't (yet).

Do they want him to win or do they want him to lose?

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[nutildah]

This is my last response to the matter as its getting pretty boring.

may

This is the crux of your argument, that a bunch of things "may" happen in Craig's favor, however unlikely. This has been his marketing approach for years and not once has it ever worked out for him or for BSV. No reason to believe it will this time.

Therefore, I personally don't think anybody needs to do anything, except for Craig, who needs to continue convincing his money men they didn't make a terrible investment (spoiler alert: they did).

Pro tip: don't write consecutive posts in a row. It looks like you're just trying to bump the topic to the top of the board and your posts might get deleted. Instead, if you have a new thought, just append it to your last post if nobody responded to it.

[bitcoinstonk]

Pro tip: don't write consecutive posts in a row. It looks like you're just trying to bump the topic to the top of the board and your posts might get deleted. Instead, if you have a new thought, just append it to your last post if nobody responded to it.

Thanks for the tip!

[DeathAngel]

CW just won’t stop will he, the lengths this guy goes to have no limits. As said the reports are that he wants to fork bitcoin so he can get the 100,000+ early bitcoin’s that he says are his 

The scary thing is that this guy has a huge army of people who say they believe he is Satoshi on Twitter & probably elsewhere too. Can people be that dumb or are they just BSV investors turning a blind eye to his nonsense because they want their bags pumped.

Surely nobody sane believes his claims?

[digaran]

Thanks for the tip!

Here is another tip, Bitcoin developer have no contractual relationship with the users, bitcoin software is open source, that's why there is no terms of service included, because the software it self is not a service, therefore the developers have no obligations to users. Furthermore they work as volunteers on the software and could at any moment quit their voluntary duty as a developer, with that being said, only some idiot you call judge/ court, would deem such claim lawful.
Bitcoin developers could actually sue CW if he manages to call them to the court, I'd suggest him to consider this fact before embarrassing himself any more.  

Edit to include this for the lawyers and judges if they missed it.
Source: https://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

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

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

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.

[franky1]

easy debate id make is
CSW claims that BSV is "his bitcoin" in CSW's opinion. thus he is fighting to gain access to BSV coins as thats "his bitcoin" which he invented and is his property
which he has always and including now had full control of.. BSV has its own developer team maintaining his BSV. and has the ledger entries of the 1fee's on his ledger, which he can edit as he pleases. the devs cited in this case have nothing to do with the ledger CSW claims as "the bitcoin"/his bitcoin, only CSW developer team does, so CSW's bsv developers can at their own discretion change their own code to however they like. case closed, no need to bother any other devs.

[ymgve2]

Couldn't the "fiduciary duties" argument be turned on its head, arguing that giving the coins to Faketoshi would go against all the others users of Bitcoin's interests, meaning that the devs have a duty to protect the interest of the many over a single person?

[BenCodie]

I can't fathom that this guy is continually wasting his precious years on hopeless causes and claims. It's been so many years since he began his claims of being Satoshi which were rendered almost meaningless. Now he is trying something that is technically impossible? How are people supposed to just "grab" private keys even in the event that they were for some reason legally obliged to?

[bitcoinstonk]

Couldn't the "fiduciary duties" argument be turned on its head, arguing that giving the coins to Faketoshi would go against all the others users of Bitcoin's interests, meaning that the devs have a duty to protect the interest of the many over a single person?

Yes, that's one of the best arguments they have. The court just needs to be convinced that it would actually harm the other users. Wright's lawyers will argue that it wouldn't, and Core's lawyers will argue that it would. It's hard to predict what the court will decide, but they'll definitely consider the question seriously.

[franky1]

claiming that devs are fiduciary rather than code project managers has other implications

core devs need to have that fine line where they develop and maintain the code but they dont assign accounts, register customers, offer refunds or interest or compensation or mediate financial dispute nor offer finance advice

much like bill gates didnt offer financial advice when he made the first version of excel/access even though excel was then used to log financial data and customer accounts

[odolvlobo]

Couldn't the "fiduciary duties" argument be turned on its head, arguing that giving the coins to Faketoshi would go against all the others users of Bitcoin's interests, meaning that the devs have a duty to protect the interest of the many over a single person?

Yes, that's one of the best arguments they have. The court just needs to be convinced that it would actually harm the other users. Wright's lawyers will argue that it wouldn't, and Core's lawyers will argue that it would. It's hard to predict what the court will decide, but they'll definitely consider the question seriously.

I think that the outcome of this trial is moot in the end.

In the very unlikely scenario of the court ordering some developer somewhere to create a version of Bitcoin that allows Craig Wright to transfer bitcoins out of those addresses, there is no possibility that anyone will be required to use that version and no possibility that anyone or any exchange will be required to accept those coins.

I believe that the judge will ultimately acknowledge the futility, but you never know.

The bigger danger is that every win increases his legitimacy in the eyes of the law. Luckily, determinations by judges previous trials are good ammunition against him, but what is needed is a huge loss where the judge states unequivocally that CSW is a liar and a fraud.

[AGD]

Isn't there a way for somebody, who lost coins with the Mt Gox incident to file a report to the police? I would if I had.

Which Police are you thinking of  to report ?

If they report to the Bitcoin Police then I could accept that and take the matters in to to Blockchain Court to justify it.

If you are lucky, I would create some another 21000000 bitcoin and pay back to Investors those who have lost their money on Mt Gox.

You didn´t get it.
If you were a client of Mt Gox and you were a victim of the Mt Gox "steal", you are looking for the one who stole your money. Now someone (CSW) pops up and says he has now the money which was stolen at Mt. Gox, you could indeed sue CSW at your local court to hand out the privkeys to given address (which he can´t, but hey...)

[fachant]

I can't fathom that this guy is continually wasting his precious years on hopeless causes and claims. It's been so many years since he began his claims of being Satoshi which were rendered almost meaningless. Now he is trying something that is technically impossible? How are people supposed to just "grab" private keys even in the event that they were for some reason legally obliged to?

This guy has the guts to remain in news and every year or two he do something that bring him back in the limelight. Now he is claiming that his computer was illegally hacked and he lost the private keys. Believe or not its the crypto that's giving importance to this fraudulent person every now and then. Just ignore him and he will die his own death but the crypto community is not willing to ignore him.

[NotATether]

If you were a client of Mt Gox and you were a victim of the Mt Gox "steal", you are looking for the one who stole your money. Now someone (CSW) pops up and says he has now the money which was stolen at Mt. Gox, you could indeed sue CSW at your local court to hand out the privkeys to given address (which he can´t, but hey...)

This guy is stupid, if it's established that the coins are his then every prosecutor chasing mt gox is going to sue his ass off to recover the stolen money from him.

Then again, I wonder if he will also claim swiveled FTX addresses belong to him as well.

[pixie85]

2. There are about 110,000 coins at those two addresses, and the BSV is worth about $20 million. He might be laying the legal (and moral) groundwork to justify confiscation of the BSV from those two addresses. That is something that he probably could pull off.

This raises an interesting question. Why should people hold BSV? If Craig gets BSV somehow extracted from those coins he'll dump it on the market to pay his legal fees and all that. We all know he's broke or nearly broke and probably wouldn't have money to start new court cases if not for his millionaire friends.

Holding BSV is very risky when you know that the guy who runs the show is emotionally unstable and out of money.

[BitcoinMoses]

Bitcoin Blockchain was not invented and developed by the earlier 12 bitcoin forum associate members. Craig cannot sue them. Craig Wright did not have any connection to Bitcoin invention or its implementation, he has acquired BSV with deception from an unknown entity and used it to create a fork  actually BSV is not Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision but Bitcoin "S" Version. "S" is the First letter of the Inventor's official first name.

Now, it I am, myself, I invented the Bitcoin and implemented the blockchain technology known as Bitcoin  Blockchain. Those Bitcoin address he is claiming his is a FBS orchestrated by one and few MF56 dreedy Bitcoin Gremlins.

Those developers can just say to the court that it is not them who created Bitcoin blockchain but Satoshi Nakamoto. So, the court can ask Satoshi Nakamoto to appear in the Court and I will be delighted to attend the Court hearing of CSW's fake court case against 12 earlier Bitcoin Forum members.

There after, I will provide the complete proof of evidence to confess his forgery and get back to the Bitcoin Drama stage to play a new role as Laughing Stock.

But if Craig confess his sin and ask forgiveness, I will forgive him because I am the most compassionate Lord Bitcoin Moses Grand Father of Bitcoin Jesus. Then, I help Craig to attain some thing better for his life to enjoy life better than being greedy Bitcoin gremlin.

There is a secret message here in this post, Borth party need third eyes to open for decipher the "message".

Isn't there a way for somebody, who lost coins with the Mt Gox incident to file a report to the police? I would if I had.

Which Police are you thinking of  to report ?

If they report to the Bitcoin Police then I could accept that and take the matters in to to Blockchain Court to justify it.

If you are lucky, I would create some another 21000000 bitcoin and pay back to Investors those who have lost their money on Mt Gox.

You didn´t get it.
If you were a client of Mt Gox and you were a victim of the Mt Gox "steal", you are looking for the one who stole your money. Now someone (CSW) pops up and says he has now the money which was stolen at Mt. Gox, you could indeed sue CSW at your local court to hand out the privkeys to given address (which he can´t, but hey...)

I got it but made the joke but you did not understand it because you are just one of my Roboto name "AGD".

Search and you will know that I gave you that AGD account to you.

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[AGD]

Bitcoin Blockchain was not invented and developed by the earlier 12 bitcoin forum associate members. Craig cannot sue them. Craig Wright did not have any connection to Bitcoin invention or its implementation, he has acquired BSV with deception from an unknown entity and used it to create a fork  actually BSV is not Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision but Bitcoin "S" Version. "S" is the First letter of the Inventor's official first name.

Now, it I am, myself, I invented the Bitcoin and implemented the blockchain technology known as Bitcoin  Blockchain. Those Bitcoin address he is claiming his is a FBS orchestrated by one and few MF56 dreedy Bitcoin Gremlins.

Those developers can just say to the court that it is not them who created Bitcoin blockchain but Satoshi Nakamoto. So, the court can ask Satoshi Nakamoto to appear in the Court and I will be delighted to attend the Court hearing of CSW's fake court case against 12 earlier Bitcoin Forum members.

There after, I will provide the complete proof of evidence to confess his forgery and get back to the Bitcoin Drama stage to play a new role as Laughing Stock.

But if Craig confess his sin and ask forgiveness, I will forgive him because I am the most compassionate Lord Bitcoin Moses Grand Father of Bitcoin Jesus. Then, I help Craig to attain some thing better for his life to enjoy life better than being greedy Bitcoin gremlin.

There is a secret message here in this post, Borth party need third eyes to open for decipher the "message".

Isn't there a way for somebody, who lost coins with the Mt Gox incident to file a report to the police? I would if I had.

Which Police are you thinking of  to report ?

If they report to the Bitcoin Police then I could accept that and take the matters in to to Blockchain Court to justify it.

If you are lucky, I would create some another 21000000 bitcoin and pay back to Investors those who have lost their money on Mt Gox.

You didn´t get it.
If you were a client of Mt Gox and you were a victim of the Mt Gox "steal", you are looking for the one who stole your money. Now someone (CSW) pops up and says he has now the money which was stolen at Mt. Gox, you could indeed sue CSW at your local court to hand out the privkeys to given address (which he can´t, but hey...)

I got it but made the joke but you did not understand it because you are just one of my Roboto name "AGD".

Search and you will know that I gave you that AGD account to you.

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

Are you taking drugs or do you have mental issues? If you have voices inside your head telling you these fantasy stories, you might need professional help.
You don´t even know the meaning of AGD and certainly noone has given this account to me, but I have signed up at bitcointalk.org in 2013.

[OgNasty]

You’ve gotta give the guy credit. He’s trying every possible legal Avenue to try and get a free lunch off of Bitcoin. So far it’s proven to be a money losing mission, but he continues to push forward. He’s probably doing Bitcoin a favor to be honest. Better sooner than later that these types of attack vectors get closed and it’s easier to defend against an obvious fraud than someone who might have had a better plan.