Bitcoin creator? Craig Wright 100% Satoshi Nakamoto?

[mynonce]

I'm just informing. --- no comment ---

Bitcoin trial: (Wright) Defendant wins dispute over $50B in Bitcoin
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-trial-defendant-wins-keeps-173905475.html

Craig Wright Cleared of All Charges Except a Conversion Count, Jury Awards $100 Million to W&K Info Defense
https://news.bitcoin.com/craig-wright-cleared-of-all-charges-except-a-conversion-count-jury-awards-100-million-to-wk-info-defense/

Australian who says he invented Bitcoin to keep $71b stash after winning trial
https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/australian-to-keep-billions-in-bitcoins-after-winning-trial-20211207-p59fcm.html

Bitcoin trial: Defendant wins, keeps Bitcoins worth $50B
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2021/dec/06/bitcoin-trial-defendant-wins-keeps-bitcoins-worth-/

Bitcoin creator Craig Wright 100% Satoshi Nakamoto
https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-creator-craig-wright-100-satoshi-nakamoto-says-kleiman-v-wright-jury/


(edited)

[1715148644]

1715148644

[1715148644]

1715148644

[1715148644]

1715148644

[CaVO32]

Now, the he won the trial, can he prove the ownership of those bitcoins? This is what we are waiting for as CW can't prove his ownership. Because as said before, he will prove his ownership once he wins the trial. And also, he plans to donate much of those to charity. So can he move those bitcoins? That's the next big question here. This is interesting to follow if he can really prove such ownership.

[franky1]

the case has NOT proved "satoshi"

it has just proved thats dave K was not part of a company Wright set up in 2013.
that is all.. moving on

[mynonce]

the case has NOT proved "satoshi"
it has just proved thats dave K was not part of a company Wright set up in 2013.
that is all.. moving on

... This is interesting to follow if he can really prove such ownership.

'Wright’s lawyer Rivero reconfirmed Wright’s plans to donate much of his Bitcoin fortune.'
If he donates, he will move them (Satoshi's coins).

[Poker Player]

'Wright’s lawyer Rivero reconfirmed Wright’s plans to donate much of his Bitcoin fortune.'
If he donates, he will move them (Satoshi's coins).

I don't understand why he waited so long then. He could have signed a message, couldn't he? He didn't need to move them. If he really moves them, will he have done that to create expectation?

[mynonce]

https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/australian-to-keep-billions-in-bitcoins-after-winning-trial-20211207-p59fcm.html
'Craig Wright, an Australian computer scientist who claims to be the inventor of Bitcoin, prevailed in a highly publicised trial on Monday in Florida that will allow him to hold onto a hoard of Bitcoins worth tens of billions of dollars.'

How can the jury allow him to hold these (Satoshi's) Bitcoin, if he is not the owner?

[franky1]

the jurys verdict is nothing to do with "satoshi"
again for emphasis. the jury did not give wright any coin or say that wright is the owner of the coin.
its purely about business ownership of a company set up in 2013

wright is not satoshi and thus does not have the private keys to move any coins from 2009. and so there is going to be no coin drama involving the 2009 stash..

calm down folks. its a meaningless verdict thats about business ownership nothing more.

the funny thing is by having a verdict that wright owns the company. now the australian tax office can sue wright for all the tax grant scamming.

im guessing wrights next game is to say he cant move the coins (his excuse) as it would then prove he owns the company(instead of linda(ex wife)) which would lead to the australian tax office lawsuit, so will (his excuse) not move coins to prevent being sued (lame excuse, but what do you expect from wright)

but overall remember
wright is, nor ever has been satoshi. wright never had the private keys. the coins wont move due to wright. so calm down folks. .. wright is still insignificant

edit for below post:
doesnt happen much but i agree with doomad on this one so lets reward him for it

[DooMAD]

OP: Please avoid providing links to coingeek/Calvin Ayre, the chief propagandist for faketoshi.  Just about everything posted on that site could be considered malicious, misrepresentative or illegitimate.  They don't deserve any traffic from this forum.  

The case doesn't prove anything, aside from the fact that both the judicial system and the media can be manipulated by con-men to further their own sordid agendas.  All we're going to see from Wright is more empty boasting and hot air.  He can't provide any form of proof that would satisfy anyone with more than two braincells to rub together.  Only the gullible and weak minded will continue to believe his lies.

[suzanne5223]

I don't know if the jury is to be blamed here but some articles writer are funny sometimes because the content of the news illustrates that Craig Wright won a case against the David Kleiman family while the article topic was saying Craig Wright is Satoshi whereas he has provided tangible proof of him to be the Bitcoin creator.

[Fortify]

I'm just informing. --- no comment ---

Bitcoin trial: Defendant (Wright) wins dispute over $50B in Bitcoin
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-trial-defendant-wins-keeps-173905475.html

Bitcoin creator Craig Wright 100% Satoshi Nakamoto
https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-creator-craig-wright-100-satoshi-nakamoto-says-kleiman-v-wright-jury/

If he was the real owner of Bitcoin he would not be bothering over such petty court cases and could easily prove it in seconds by just moving a tiny amount of mbtc to demonstrate he has control of this fortune. The real owner is likely deceased or it could even be some sort of governmental agency (much like the military effectively invented the internet for the original purpose of internal communication). If you own that much money, or even half of that amount, then the last thing you should be doing is bothering to waste time in court. I do wonder whether he will have to pay his own court costs, because if he isn't the real owner then he has wasted a lot of money to prove an insignificant point.

[macson]

from the start, CW's goal of claiming to be a satoshi was just to steal people's attention in order to market its shitcoin called "Bitcoin SV".  i still remember very well how a correspondent almost hit him when he insisted that he was the real satoshi.  the jury does the right thing, the truth will always be revealed.

[franky1]

I do wonder whether he will have to pay his own court costs, because if he isn't the real owner then he has wasted a lot of money to prove an insignificant point.

wright has no value.
his only earnings are from speaking jobs at conventions.
he has a sugar daddy called calvin ayre who is fronting the legal costs where wright promises ayre's returns in income from projects and books deals and movie deals.
makes me laugh how much ayre's has fronted for wright and hopes to get rich from wright.. never gonna happen

[mynonce]

OP: Please avoid providing links to coingeek/Calvin Ayre, the chief propagandist for faketoshi.

Only wanted to inform the community.

Edited first post and changed topic to: Bitcoin creator? Craig Wright 100% Satoshi Nakamoto?

[The Cryptovator]

OP: Please avoid providing links to coingeek/Calvin Ayre, the chief propagandist for faketoshi.

Only wanted to inform the community.

Edited first post and changed topic to: Bitcoin creator Craig Wright 100% Satoshi Nakamoto?

There was a lot of discussion about faketoshi previously. They tried to prove Craig Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto in the forum as well. But they failed to do so and were refused by the community. He is just a scammer, does not have any proper evidence to support his claim. He failed to sign a message from Satoshi Nakamoto's address. There is no alternative to prove him as Satoshi Nakamoto. At least I wouldn't believe Satoshi would lose all of his Bitcoin address private keys who created the ecosystem. Even Craig Wright is Satoshi really then we don't need him. Because Bitcoin is a decentralized cryptocurrency, doesn't matter who created that. Satoshi won't destroy his kingdom by creating a scam coin.

[gmaxwell]

The amount of misinformation on this is truly astounding.

Wright was accused a dozen different forms of liability.  None of the questions to the jury had *anything* to do with Wright being Satoshi.

Bitcoin experts agree that it is well established that Wright didn't have anything to do with the creation of Bitcoin.

The jury found wright civilly liable for stealing $100 million dollars from his dead's friend's business.

(Likely because wright essentially impersonated the business in an Australian court, playing as both the plaintiff and the defendant and then agreed with himself to hand over tens of millions in fictional assets, as part of his effort to get away with tax fraud)

So a correct title would be something like "$100 million dollar civil judgement against Satoshi imposter for stealing".

For those of you who think wright's fraud is benign or only hurts people foolish enough to fall for it, I have bad news.  Wright is engaging in a dozen other lawsuits against Bitcoin community members, journalists, and developers.

E.g. Wright is demanding a dozen former and current Bitcoin developers-- including myself-- to publish backdoored bitcoin software to enable him to take control of a huge pile of old bitcoins (which obviously belong to other people) because Wright claims to have lost the private keys, and if they fail to help him, he demands they pay him 111k BTC in damages.  He's also bankrupted Bitcoin podcaster Peter McCormack with legal fees defending an obviously spurious defamation claim which hasn't even made it to trial yet.

Even though he'll ultimately fail in his vexatious litigation that won't stop him from causing people millions of dollars in expenses, countless wasted hours, and immeasurable amounts of stress -- and if that's the cost of participating then many reasonable people will choose to not expose themselves to it.

[Ryker1]

Well, thank you for that information @gmaxwell, you have disclosed the dirty moves of Craig Wright which is the very worst person that has committed different crimes and he did not able to prove himself that he is the real creator of bitcoin. He has different fraud activities and for sure if he will succeed in his plan I don't know what will happen to bitcoin. What a desperate person just to be pretended that he is a satoshi, demanding developers and pay them a billion dollars just to publish backdoored bitcoin, he must in jail in that way.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/australian-to-keep-billions-in-bitcoins-after-winning-trial-20211207-p59fcm.html
'Craig Wright, an Australian computer scientist who claims to be the inventor of Bitcoin, prevailed in a highly publicised trial on Monday in Florida that will allow him to hold onto a hoard of Bitcoins worth tens of billions of dollars.'

How can the jury allow him to hold these (Satoshi's) Bitcoin, if he is not the owner?

So you also fell for this crap? Come on @mynonce

There's only one much more legit way for CW to prove his claims and he has failed to do so. Given how malicious and greedy CW is, If he had access to the satoshi era addresses, don't you think he would have already signed the much needed message spent all the Bitcoins in there to fund his shitcoin since he nolonger believes in Bitcoin?

[swogerino]

https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/australian-to-keep-billions-in-bitcoins-after-winning-trial-20211207-p59fcm.html
'Craig Wright, an Australian computer scientist who claims to be the inventor of Bitcoin, prevailed in a highly publicised trial on Monday in Florida that will allow him to hold onto a hoard of Bitcoins worth tens of billions of dollars.'

How can the jury allow him to hold these (Satoshi's) Bitcoin, if he is not the owner?

So you also fell for this crap? Come on @mynonce

There's only one much more legit way for CW to prove his claims and he has failed to do so. Given how malicious and greedy CW is, If he had access to the satoshi era addresses, don't you think he would have already signed the much needed message spent all the Bitcoins in there to fund his shitcoin since he nolonger believes in Bitcoin?

Exactly that.Just a single signed message from him from one of the addresses we all know belong to Satoshi would solve everything.As long as he cannot prove it he is not Satoshi,as simple as that.

[mynonce]

https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/australian-to-keep-billions-in-bitcoins-after-winning-trial-20211207-p59fcm.html
'Craig Wright, an Australian computer scientist who claims to be the inventor of Bitcoin, prevailed in a highly publicised trial on Monday in Florida that will allow him to hold onto a hoard of Bitcoins worth tens of billions of dollars.'

How can the jury allow him to hold these (Satoshi's) Bitcoin, if he is not the owner?

So you also fell for this crap? Come on @mynonce

What I meant was, why is the court not saying: Before we discuss if or how much you owe other people, you have to prove that you are the owner of these Bitcoin.

[aoluain]

Australian who says he invented Bitcoin to keep $71b stash after winning trial

Bitcoin trial: Defendant wins, keeps Bitcoins worth $50B

Great, this is just like Greg Maxwell telling me I can keep Satoshi's coins,
Like they are controlled by someone else who has authority to grant that permission and like
what the hell can I do with my new power over something I dont possess.

In order to keep something you must first have it and be in a position to hand it back or pass
it on to someone else.

I'm not opening any of those links in the op, they are filled with nonsense