Bitcoin creator? Craig Wright 100% Satoshi Nakamoto?

[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.

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.

That's exactly what I meant.

[Fatunad]

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.

One of the main things that we do need for him to prove out if he's really Satoshi but still it havent done yet which same as you said these claims would turn out to be
trolling because as long he doesnt able to prove out anything then they would really be just those faketoshi who do claim out that they are satoshi.
We do just only need some signed message or moving out some funds in one of satoshi wallets and that would really be enough.

[sheenshane]

Just a signed message of Bitcoin address that's publicly known by satoshi.  No proof it means he is telling a lie and he is nonsense and should people put him or their ignore list.

So, that's a big NO, he isn't a Bitcoin creator and he isn't a Satoshi Nakamoto.  He is just an attention seeker just to promote his own coin as well and called it "BSV" which is I doubt, the reason he was trying to impersonate as a Bitcoin creator just because of his coin. 

It's very well said, Greg Maxwell, so you think now that this who claiming Satoshi is the real one? 

[nullama]

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.

From this article:

Yet neither Wright nor his defense were willing or able to provide private keys belonging to Nakamoto that could prove his claims—long doubted by many—that he invented Bitcoin.

[ultrloa]

He can't prove anything about that claims so why still keep having discussion about this? Once he can sign a message which what people want to ask from him then maybe we will believe that he is real Satoshi Nakamoto but if he just bluffing and want medias attention then he's not different from the other who claim that they are the real creator.

There are so many clowns everywhere so don't believe easily on what people tell unless they can show something that can verify their claims.

[mynonce]

The amount of misinformation on this is truly astounding.
...
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.
...

'The Australia-born Wright, who later moved to London, in May sued here 16 software developers to secure around 111,000 bitcoin now worth about $5.4 billion that he claimed he owns.' https://www.reuters.com/article/us-crypto-currency-lawsuit/self-proclaimed-bitcoin-inventor-largely-prevails-in-54-billion-bitcoin-trial-idUSKBN2IL25A

'In a case that was promptly labelled "bogus" by one defendant, Craig Wright is demanding that developers allow him to retrieve around 111,000 bitcoin held at two digital addresses that he does not have private keys for.' https://www.reuters.com/technology/australias-wright-launches-lawsuit-over-57-bln-bitcoin-haul-2021-05-12/


@gmaxwell: I didn't know this.

[franky1]

the case revolves around the company W&K. created in 2013. and who are the directors/founders of the company

its not to do with satoshi proof.
the crap media of coingeek is making it sound like its to do with satoshi proof

but the actual court stuff is to do with ownership claims of a company.. a company that was not even in existance in 2008-2011

the court did not need to see proof of the collateral of the company. because the case was not about the collateral. it didnt need to legally ensure the collateral was real or that the company was legally valued at 110kcoin. because it was not what the court was judging.(both parties just said they agree thats the company value, thus no contention to need to prove)

again the verdict was not about ownership and proof of custody of the coins. it was just about the company

the whole 'one party owes 50% of XX' claim. does not mean proof that X exists within one or both parties. it just means that both parties made a verbal agreement of those terms that one needs to pay the other 50% of XX. even if XX does not exist between them.

put it this way.
lets make up an item. 'pink fluffy eggs with spikes'(something that does not exist in reality)
i can set up a company with someone and claim we have 1million P.F.E.W.S. and later we can disagree on who owns a company.
we can go to court and both make claims of ownership of the company and say that there are 1million p.f.e.w.s as collateral in a company. and whoever wins a trial about the company ownership gets to keep the p.f.e.w.s.
the trial shows i win the company name and ownership.
but the existence of the p.f.e.w.s is still not proved, nor had to be,
any payment arrangement of one side to the other is then back to me and the partner in private. whereby i can then just tell the judge without any movement of p.f.e.w.s that i am settled and received my half and happy that the trial is over.

none of this creates p.f.e.w.s nor does it prove p.f.e.w.s ever existed in the companies custody

[nullama]

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.

And this is what Satoshi said

Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more.  Think of it as a donation to everyone.

[gmaxwell]

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.

Because that isn't how courts work: Wright claims to have $x billion bitcoins and so anyone suing him is legally entitled to take his word for it.  For it to be an issue in any civil trial the parties would have to be fighting over it.  Civil court exists to arbitrate specific disputes between specific parties, not to determine the truth or impose any kind of cosmic fairness-- they're only supposed to settle the dispute.

In this case, all they were fighting over is what Wright owed the company of his dead friend.  And the jury found that Wright owed $100 million from plundering the company of vaguely specified "intellectual property" that wright pretended to be dave's company to get in AU court, and then wright sold to Calvin Ayre for a few million to form the basis of nChain.

The jury wasn't asked anything about Bitcoin other than how many dollars in damages the family was owed due to wright stealing Bitcoins from Dave and his company, and for that they decided $0  -- potentially because they correctly concluded that wright never had any.  The family tried to argue on the basis of Wright's document that wright also owed billions of dollars worth of Bitcoin but the documents that they got from Wright which claimed that Wright had Bitcoins were all forgeries and as a result not very convincing, but Wright more or less admitted that he raided these companies via false court cases.

[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.

Because that isn't how courts work: ...

I got it now.

@satoshi: support the Bitcoin community, we need a convenient message and a signature, somewhere, somehow

[gmaxwell]

@satoshi: support the Bitcoin community, we need a convenient message and a signature, somewhere, somehow

For all anyone knows Satoshi isn't even alive anymore.  It's probably for the best.

Moreover, it's not clear that it would help:  While it isn't a signature by Satoshi, under oath Craig wright provided a list of the bitcoin holdings he claims he mined as satoshi... thousands of early addresses. ... and as soon as the list was published the owner(s) of 145 of the addresses, controlling 7250 BTC, signed a message saying those addresses didn't belong to Wright and that Wright was a fraud.

This seems to have little to no effect.  This utter demolision of Wright's claims has been almost entirely ignored by the media because Wright and his conspirators have extensive influence over the media by putting out a constant stream of articles that lazy journalists can copy-and-tweak into their own articles.

[yazher]

What will be the impact of this news on the bitcoin market? because they putting this news on the front page and everyone is currently talking about it today.

I think if they also published about this guy's false claims, they won't really be bothered about what he says anymore. But unfortunately, they won't gonna do that because they might already get some tips from him.

[HashFace]

I think he's full of shit and doesn't have the private keys.  I think his end game and next legal battle will be to try to use the courts to force mining pools to recognize Wright as the owner of those millions of bitcoins and give him access to the coins through a fork or some other way ... that even theoretically possible? 

[wajik-tempe]

I think he's full of shit and doesn't have the private keys.  I think his end game and next legal battle will be to try to use the courts to force mining pools to recognize Wright as the owner of those millions of bitcoins and give him access to the coins through a fork or some other way ... that even theoretically possible? 

Yeah satoshi nakamoto itself must be an anonymous guy which won't reveal his identity that's why he was using a fake name, if this man really invented bitcoin they will not using fake name since his showmanship is high and want to pbe popular among the cryptocurrency users.
So i don't think it's true, but one thing that i trust that satoshi is not a person but a group of people who created the whole blockchain system and they are still involved about bitcoin development until now.

[mynonce]

... wright provided a list of the bitcoin holdings he claims he mined as satoshi... thousands of early addresses. ... and as soon as the list was published the owner(s) of 145 of the addresses, controlling 7250 BTC, signed a message saying those addresses didn't belong to Wright and that Wright was a fraud.

Is this https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.512.7.pdf the list?

[gmaxwell]

I think he's full of shit and doesn't have the private keys.  I think his end game and next legal battle will be to try to use the courts to force mining pools to recognize Wright as the owner of those millions of bitcoins and give him access to the coins through a fork or some other way ... that even theoretically possible?  

No, miners can't do anything there--  I mean anyone can create a fork of Bitcoin at any time, but the only way someone follows that fork is that they choose to adopt it. And no one but Wright would choose to accept a fork that steals coins for him.  (He already has a fork that doesn't steal coins and it has well under 1% of Bitcoin's hashpower, way less than 1% of Bitcoin's value, and less than 40 reachable nodes).

Also in Wright's lawsuit against varrious former and current Bitcoin developers Wright states in a sworn statement that miners have no control ... so this would probably completely undermine his ability to litigate against any miners.


Wright's known ongoing attacks are:

1.  File SLAPP litigation against journalists and community members to induce self-censorship of voices that call out his fraud.  This is a key plank to his media control-- if you look at todays mainstream reporting they almost all universally repeat wright's laughably false narrative.

2. File spurious litigation to try to get control of bitcoin domain names.  There was an existing lawsuit against bitcoin.org, which is still effectively ongoing because they've demanded like a million dollars in fees, he's also threatened a new lawsuit against bitcoin.org and bitcoincore.org for stealing the Bitcoin name.

3. File spurious litigation against respected Bitcoin technical experts, particularly ones who have discredited his claims of being Satoshi.  Wright hopes to harass the remaining developers out of participating (and discourage older ones from coming back), and failing that destroy their reputations by trying to force them to create and distribute backdoored code that he's demanding.  Wright also alleges that the developers lack any standing to challenge his claim of owning these coins.

4. Target developers with patent and "database rights" litigation, which he's also started threatening.

He may be attempting to take over bitcoin development by driving the reasonable OGs out and then adding new people who are secretly on his payroll, potentially operating under pseudonyms.

He's also threatened a number of large exchanges that don't list BSV, but it's not clear how important these moves are or if they're just for PR sake.  Coinbase is already subject to dozens of lawsuits and against a company of their size and wealth another bullshit lawsuit has about zero intimidation effect.  By comparison, to a volunteer open source developer a spurious lawsuit can mean a ruinous imposition of expenses and time, and really make it a poor personal decision to contribute.

... wright provided a list of the bitcoin holdings he claims he mined as satoshi... thousands of early addresses. ... and as soon as the list was published the owner(s) of 145 of the addresses, controlling 7250 BTC, signed a message saying those addresses didn't belong to Wright and that Wright was a fraud.

Is this https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.512.7.pdf the list?

Yes, if you scroll up on that page I linked to it also has more background information.

[mynonce]

Is this https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.512.7.pdf the list?

Yes, if you scroll up on that page I linked to it also has more background information.

I checked your link with the signatures. Yes, the owners sign this message. Maybe @satoshi can add one signature to this list. Do you know the patoshi pattern? https://bitslog.com/2019/04/16/the-return-of-the-deniers-and-the-revenge-of-patoshi/ If one of these addresses could publish a signature, I would know that it is Satoshi.

[cabron]

4. Target developers with patent and "database rights" litigation, which he's also started threatening.
He may be attempting to take over bitcoin development by driving the reasonable OGs out and then adding new people who are secretly on his payroll, potentially operating under pseudonyms.

If he patents blockchain, would it mean that it will not be open source, and does it mean all other altcoins may also be affected?

The market is already bad because of the ETFs that don't contribute to the network and then this CSW won the case that he can't even prove by signing. The fud will continue to grow this time. Taking over the development of BTC is the worse, would the community leave BTC all for Wright's claim?

[gmaxwell]

If he patents blockchain, would it mean that it will not be open source, and does it mean all other altcoins may also be affected?

He can't obtain a valid patent on that because bitcoin is open and unpatented years before Wright ever heard of it.  Once something is published that becomes a bar to patentability called prior art.  But this doesn't stop someone from making spurious patent lawsuits as a form of harassment, they'll ultimately lose, but they still waste their opponents time and money.

Of course, he could attack altcoins but most major altcoins have massive premines that they can use to pay him off-- or use to fund litigation to stop him.  His scheme mostly centers around harassing Bitcoin and Bitcoin forks and so far he's left other altcoins alone.

I would know that it is Satoshi.

There isn't any particular reason to believe those blocks were mined by Satoshi rather than some other early miner.  Other than the genesis block the only block we have a pretty good reason to believe is Satoshi is block 9 (pretty good because hal claimed satoshi used it to send him the first transaction) -- and it doesn't fit that pattern. Regardless of who mined those blocks, they probably don't want to do anything that would identify themselves... even assuming they still have the keys.  A lot of coins mined in the first year have likely just been lost.  Bitcoin was essentially worthless then.

But my point was it doesn't matter if Satoshi hasn't signed-- because the signatures by other people have conclusively proved that Wright is lying about his early bitcoin holdings-- not just casually but in court too! ... no Satoshi involvement needed!

It's like if I claimed that I had traveled to and landed on the moon but dismantled and disposed of my rocket after the fact. Kind of hard to disprove.  But then you ask me where I landed and I gave a list of specific landing sites, swore they were correct and carefully recorded under oath, and you sent up a team and verified that no one had ever landed at some of those sites.  You'd have to be insane to believe my moon landing story after that-- it was suspect to begin with, but after checking you proved that I was at least partially lying about it.

Of course, these addresses aren't the only such example.  Every time wright has provided strongly falsifiable proof that he's Satoshi people have been able to falsify it.  The only claims he's made that haven't been falsified are things that are inherently unfalsifiable-- like his bare assertion or claims of key signing demos where wright controlled all the involved computers.   Even some of his "handwritten" notes which you'd think would be unfalsifiable turned out to contain references and terminology that didn't exist until later.

[Amejoaquim]

What amuses me is that Craig Wright is an awful coder which should have automatically shown that he wasn't Satoshi Nakamoto. Only a genius (like Hal Finney) could have written the whitepaper and made the original code. Craig Wright is some loser with a collegiate level understanding of coding.