Craig Wright Is Not Bitcoin Creator Satoshi Nakamoto, Judge Declares (wired.com) 112
A judge in the UK High Court has declared that Australian computer scientist Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, marking the end of a years-long debate. From a report: "The evidence is overwhelming," said Honourable Mr. Justice James Mellor, delivering a surprise ruling at the close of the trial. "Dr. Wright is not the author of the Bitcoin white paper. Dr. Wright is not the person that operated under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. Dr. Wright is not the person that created the Bitcoin system. Nor is Dr. Wright the author of the Bitcoin software," he said.
The ruling brings to a close a six-week trial, in which the Crypto Open Patent Alliance, a nonprofit consortium of crypto companies, asked the court to declare that Wright is not Satoshi on the basis that he had allegedly fabricated his evidence and contorted his story repeatedly as new inconsistencies came to light. "After all the evidence in this remarkable trial, it is clear beyond doubt that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto," claimed Jonathan Hough, legal counsel for COPA, as he began his closing submissions on Tuesday. "Wright has lied, and lied, and lied."
The ruling brings to a close a six-week trial, in which the Crypto Open Patent Alliance, a nonprofit consortium of crypto companies, asked the court to declare that Wright is not Satoshi on the basis that he had allegedly fabricated his evidence and contorted his story repeatedly as new inconsistencies came to light. "After all the evidence in this remarkable trial, it is clear beyond doubt that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto," claimed Jonathan Hough, legal counsel for COPA, as he began his closing submissions on Tuesday. "Wright has lied, and lied, and lied."
Fact (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Satoshi is either a computer geek who shelved the project and lost the original coins and wants nothing to do with all the attention without the financial ability to be shielded from the bad bits, or dead.
There are a bunch of less likely conspiracy theory options, but I think 'dead' is the one that makes the most sense to go with. Most people, even having lost access to those original coins, would have tried to cash in somehow, long ago. The best reason to suspect that hasn't happened is death.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of speculation about a rather prominent crypto developer who died very suspiciously shortly after Satoshi's farewell message.
Re:Fact (Score:5, Interesting)
If I recall, the consensus around the forums was that Hal Finney [wikipedia.org] was not Satoshi.
You don't mention a name, so I'm assuming a little bit, but I can't recall anyone else who was prominent in the community (and at least minimally plausible) dying in the early days.
Re: (Score:2)
A more extreme conspiracy theory! (Score:5, Funny)
How about *this* for a more extreme conspiracy theory:
Wright actually *is* Satoshi, and did all of this to cement his anonymity!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
damnit!
Re: (Score:2)
A simpler explanation is that it was a gig and his own property is separate from his work product.
The owners may move the p2pk coins once a quantum factoring is demonstrated. No need now if they have plenty of money.
Re: (Score:2)
That has to be the least credible yet cultist theory I've ever.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No, I am Satosh... erm, Spartacus!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a conspiracy theory. It's a theory. And the government, especially the CIA, has done far stranger things going back to the 60s, at least.
How many far more fucked up things should I list for you they've done than invent fake money?
It's far more likely than some random guy came up with a new thing on his own and then vanished, leaving no trace of his existence and abandoning billions of dollars. That makes sense to you, huh?
Re: (Score:1)
It's not a conspiracy theory. It's a theory.
Yeah, sorry but no! A theory requires evidence to support the theory. You're making a claim for which you have ZERO actual evidence. That's basically a conspiracy theory.
Again, Hitchen's Razor ("What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence")
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are confused and ESL. I didn't make a claim (aka truth). I said it was my theory. The word theory is right there in my subject line.
You're not too bright.
By your measure the only things we are allowed to talk about are things we already have solid evidence for. No one is allowed to make a conjecture of any sort or you know,,. Have an idea or opinion or theory.
You do know what a theory is, right? Apparently not.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a conspiracy theory. It's a theory.
Someone (you) needs to go back to school. A theory requires evidence. You have none. What you have is a quackadoodle doo conspiracy theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you are truly stupid. A theory does not require any evidence at all.
Go look up the word.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need evidence. And if it is true there is no way to prove or disprove it anyway. That doesn't make it wrong.
You took a basic logic or rhetoric class, yes? No? I took both and passed with top marks. It always makes me laugh to see ignorant people spew nonsense like they know what they're talking about when the exact opposite is easily provable.
Go look up the common meaning of the word "theory". Have a ice day,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The whole point of the blockchain is traceability. Anyone can view any transaction. If the CIA wanted to move money they would simply physically do it.
Re: (Score:1)
Because moving $50m is easy.
Ok.
And I didn't say the CIA wanted to move the money. But you do you.
Re: (Score:2)
The CIA needed a way to transfer money around in a way they could track but wasn't easily tracked by other which they could sell to the underground economy.
That is true if you knew nothing about Bitcoin and just got your information from random people on the Internet. Every single transaction is recorded in the ledger, and the ledger is public. Now people may not know who owns [Wallet A] but everyone can see when [Wallet A] transferred [Coin 6] to [Wallet B]. As soon as the identity of [Wallet A] is known, then every transaction of that person(s) is known by the entire world.
Re: (Score:2)
Wallet A transfers to Wallet X - tell me you know exactly what happened??
What part of public ledger is not clear? Every single transaction can be viewed since the beginning of Bitcoin. Every single one. That make tracking money quite easy not harder as the OP suggests.
why are you assuming that the identify of any wallet will ever be revealed? you autists have massive holes in your logic which is pretty funny given how obsessive you are over it.
I never assumed to known the identity of a wallet. I said every transaction is public so tracking is quite easy. That destroys the OP's point. You seem so offended when some presents facts. I assume you must be the OP trying to post as AC.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read an article written only around a year ago that made a very strong argument that this is exactly the case. Well, that and the fact that these agencies were interested in the "social experiment" aspect of it all too.
The name Satoshi is primarily a male name of Japanese origin that means Intelligent History.
"Naka" can mean "medium, inside, or relationship." "Moto" can mean "origin" or "foundation."
So it seems like a pretty clever pseudonym to refer to the "Central Intelligence Agency".
(People should rea
Re: (Score:2)
Anything is possible, but wouldn't it make sense for whatever agency did it to still sell their bitcoin? It wouldn't be a lot of money for a three letter agency, but still a substantial enough amount to be useful.
Of Course He's Not (Score:3, Funny)
I am Satoshi Nakamoto, and so is my wife! :-D
Re: (Score:1)
I believe Satoshi Nakamoto is actually Alpharius.
So you're saying ... (Score:2)
Wright wasn't right?
Re: (Score:2)
No, he was rong!
Re: Why is this for a judge to decide? (Score:2)
Probably becase Wright is making some IP claim based on him being SN. And the judge has said in effect that he has no grounds to proceed.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the burden of proof on the person making the claim?
Yes, and he failed. What do you not understand here? A court was asked to weigh in on a claim, and the court weighed in on the claim.
How much did this nonsense cost the taxpayers?
Zero. Tax payers do not pay the costs of civil trials.
Re: (Score:1)
Also, you don't get to set the temperature on the coffee
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So... I would never award anything to those a$$holes that sued McD's
The plaintiff suffered 3rd degree burns to 6% of her body due to the temperature of the coffee. Beside the fact that coffee flavour is ruined at that temperature it is not a suitable serving temperature and it was proven in court that the McDonalds was serving coffee at temperatures way higher than any other place serving coffee. Just because some Karen with burnt tastebuds complains, doesn't mean you overcorrect in the other way. If you get served a fresh cup of coffee and spill it on yourself there's an e
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Not really relevant. Because it would have been relatively inconsequential to spill hot coffee on yourself at a normal serving temperature. First, maybe minor second degree burns, are not the same thing.
Re: Why is this for a judge to decide? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The coffee machines that McDonald's had at the time had poorly designed temperature sensors and the machines were also set to deliver coffee that was as hot as possible because they wanted to ensure the coffee the customer received was hot.
This led to McDonald's handing out literal super-heated coffee to customers, which did horrific damage to the woman who won the lawsuit. (I've seen the photos, it's horrific.) The lawsuit was totally justified and the injury was real.
On the plus side, a good thing did com
Re: (Score:1)
Why should the coffee you buy at MD, have a different temparature than the one you make at home?
Hu?
Inadequate design of the cups and lids was a part (Score:2)
..if that is what you are asking.
Re: (Score:2)
Did macdonalds drop the coffee on her or did she drop it on herself?
Irrelevant. The only relevant thing here is the McDonalds product burnt her when there was an expectation it shouldn't have. The fundamental concept here is "duty of care", not "stand by and blame idiots for doing something stupid".
Re: (Score:1)
Apparently you didn't read my post and just wanted to tell me about the lawsuit, with which I am already familiar.
The coffee machine at EVERY DAMN MCDONALD'S in the USA is an industry standard coffee machine, and DOES NOT HAVE SEPARATE SETTINGS FOR Temperature.
Re: (Score:2)
The coffee machine at EVERY DAMN MCDONALD'S in the USA is an industry standard coffee machine, and DOES NOT HAVE SEPARATE SETTINGS FOR Temperature.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiff produced evidence from McDonald's that directed restaurants to keep coffee above 180F so that it would last longer. 180F is close to boiling which is why the plaintiff got burned so badly.
Re: (Score:2)
The coffee machine at EVERY DAMN MCDONALD'S in the USA is an industry standard coffee machine, and DOES NOT HAVE SEPARATE SETTINGS FOR Temperature.
That's true now. You're suffering from recency bias. The old machines used to be able to be turned up to dispense super-hot coffee. And most of them were set that way nationwide.
The coffee machines McD's use now have a much more accurate temperature sensing system to ensure the coffee is always dispensed at the appropriate temperature. You can read my other comment above for a little more in-depth explanation.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you didn't read my post and just wanted to tell me about the lawsuit, with which I am already familiar.
If you were so familiar then why do you think the person shouldn't get a cent? You realise that what you just said raises your bar from negligence to criminal liability right? You're proposing injuring people on purpose now, rather than by accident.
The coffee machine at EVERY DAMN MCDONALD'S in the USA is an industry standard coffee machine, and DOES NOT HAVE SEPARATE SETTINGS FOR Temperature.
Yes it does. Just because they don't let a 15 year old getting $5/hour set the temperature doesn't mean it doesn't have settings for temperature.
whatever
Quite a fitting way to start your post. It shows the level of care and thought you go through in life. Sums up why you
Re: (Score:2)
Had that argument some years back with a coworker and he was adamant that the coffee was indeed, too hot. As if the workers there could magically set the temp hotter in the machine for one cup of coffee. Apparently this guy had never worked in such lowly positions as working at McD's.
The plaintiffs uncovered a directive from McDonald's to their restaurants to keep coffee above 180F as it would last longer. The workers do not need to set the coffee for each machine if they were all set that high.
Re: (Score:2)
Indirect costs of civil lawsuits and failing legal systems are all around us every day. A cup of coffee has a legal cost to it become some bitty forgot the basic fact golden arches coffee is hot by convention. The
Sigh, those are costs passed onto the loser's consumer, *not* the taxpayer as being discussed here. So no, not direct, not indirect. The only people paying anything are Craig Wright, and since he's not a company passing on costs to customers there's no further indirect costs.
That said the court does occupy a government maintained building so maybe the tax payer is on the hook for the cleaning lady wiping down the bench at which Craig Wright sat on putting your average tax payer on the hook for a millionth o
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh, those are costs passed onto the loser's consumer, *not* the taxpayer as being discussed here
Companies do have profits, you know. And raising prices will lose you sales.
Just wait (Score:1)
When you suckers find out that I am Sakoshiy Nakatami it'll be all over for you bitches!
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you were just another old guy???
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you were just another old guy???
SHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... Now I'm swearing that I'm Sarcosis Narcolepsy!
If I was Satoshi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I would just anonymously disown Bitcoin, to save face from all the scams and environmental damage it caused.
In a way that's exactly what he did. It's also possible he planned for that event all along.
Satoshi and other founders have said from the very start that bitcoin was an experiment. One they did not *know* the outcome of.
There was, and as you point out currently are, plenty of outcomes that would be quite negative.
Satoshi chose not to make a link between their bitcoin keypair identity and their real world identity.
They did not want the outcomes of the experiment linked to their name, at least not initially
It is close to a certanty that he is dead. (Score:2)
Which would explain his 'inactivity'.
Imagine... (Score:2)
Re:Imagine... (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine if you invented something only to be told by a judge that you didn't. (Not saying that's what happened here.) What recourse would you have? I guess if you need to document that you did something, you should document that you did it. Preferably in a way that can be verified later.
The Satoshi wallets contain a massive (potential) fortune right now. All he has to do is transfer from one of the wallets or sign something with Satoshi's key. Which brings up an interesting point. Those wallets have never been touched. Who has a bank account in the billions and has never needed a new roof or new car and dipped in? Selling off 66,000 BTC would tank the market but come on sell one and buy yourself a new Benz.
Re: (Score:3)
I've said before:
Anyone who got to that point knows that the original wallets will be watched like a hawk - by users and governments alike.
But at any point they could have just joined in a bunch of smaller miners and made an absolute killing with a properly anonymous wallet that isn't being monitored, live a life of luxury, and never have to touch the original coins at all.
Also, if the original creator was, say, funded by a government agency somewhere - even just for research - they wouldn't be allowed to t
Re: (Score:2)
Only problem is, the poor guy accidentally threw away the hard drive that has the key on it. I hate it when that happens!
Re: Imagine... (Score:2)
This is what signature witnesses and notary publics are for.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be extremely hard to develop something like bitcoin and not leave a trace, not one single thing you could point to that would show some linkage back to you. Zero, zip, nada. How likely is that, really?
Or, as many people have said, he could withdraw and sell one bitcoin and put this entire matter to rest.
If he did create it and managed to leave no trace and managed to lose all his keys, well, tough shit. That's what ya get for being a hapless, clumsy dork.
But personally I find it ridiculousl
Re: (Score:2)
But personally I find it ridiculously improbable that he could be so involved in its creation and have absolutely no way to prove it.
Even if we grant that all the keys were somehow lost, it was clear to some that Wright is not Nakamoto as he would get facts wrong. Wright would testify to facts contradicted by early emails and postings by Nakamoto. For example, Nakamoto's private emails with Martti Malmi [protos.com], the first administrator of Bitcoin.org, were not known to the public so Wright could not have known the contents if he was not Nakamoto. In another example, Wright claimed (as Nakamoto) he transferred some early BTC to an individual for
Re: (Score:1)
In the early bitcoin times, you could download them from random web sites. That is how I got my bitcoins ...
click here to receive one bitcoin
what is a bitcoin?
So giving away hundreds of bitcoins and not knowing to whom, is completely plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
He most certainly is not. ... his lawsuits have no point. So no idea what that idiot is about.
And even if he was
Publicity?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Supposed he was Nakamoto and could prove it.
How would he achieve the goals you mention?
I do not think there is any way for that.
Re: (Score:2)
How would he achieve the goals you mention?
For the stolen Bitcoins, he is trying to indirectly use his claim that he is Nakamoto to force Bitcoin developers to something that is against the principles of Bitcoin. For the other lawsuits, he is directly using his claim he is Nakamoto as these other coins are using his "IP" without permission (or paying him). By the way the second case of lawsuits have been paused with this ruling. If he is not Nakamoto, then the developers do need not prove in court if they are using Nakamoto's IP as he has no standin
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if you invented something only to be told by a judge that you didn't. (Not saying that's what happened here.) What recourse would you have?
None. But your example is incredibly unlikely. Inventions do not exist in a vacuum. Unless you invented something, then your house burnt down, your cloud provider went bankrupt, and your got hit in the head causing brain damage you would have some kind of way of proving you were the actual inventor.
Re: (Score:1)
I have nothing in any cloud.
And during the time bitcoin was developed, the only "cloud"' was source forge.
Re:Imagine... (Score:4)
I guess if you need to document that you did something, you should document that you did it. Preferably in a way that can be verified later.
And the court found the documentation that Wright submitted were forgeries. This case started however because Wright was trying to use his Satoshi Nakamoto claim to attack others legally. For example suing the Bitcoin developers to code exceptions [coindesk.com] in the blockchain to give him ownership of coins that were not his; Suing anyone who challenged his claim of being Nakomoto [coindesk.com]; threatening anyone in the crypto space with legal action if they used Bitcoin "IP" he owned as Nakamoto, etc.
I cannot remember who said it but someone commented the fact that Wright was suing all these entities only reinforced the notion he was not Nakamoto. At today's price, Nakamoto's coins would be worth between $53B and $77B. Why would someone who could cash all of that Bitcoin even care about these legal battles worth maybe millions? That is basically "fuck everyone" amounts of money. They could buy whole islands to retire.
Re: (Score:2)
None. I'd just have to whip out my key, exchange a bunch of BTC for ten million hundred dollar bills, and retire into obscurity. I'd shrug and say "Oh well, I guess I'm not legally myself," as I wait for my harem to replace the hundred-dollar-bills-bedding that we're all going to fuck on.
That's probably what Craig Wright is doing right now. Why wouldn't he? If he's not doing this tonight, then he's probably not for real.
Thank heavens that's over, but (Score:2)
I am pretty sure that we haven't heard the last of Mr Wright.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wright the fraudster and pathological liar has been caught in other matters too. Hilarious his wikipedia entry deleted the information about his false degree claims
https://www.forbes.com/sites/t... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Here's a phone (Score:2)
Call someone who cares.
Wright the Pathological Liar with False Creds (Score:1)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/t... [forbes.com]
Funny this was deleted from his wikipedia bio, his lifetime of lies and fraud need to be put back in there
Not a debate (Score:2)
One side making a claim that has been universally refuted for years is not a "debate". What has ended here was a years long unsubstantiated claim from a known fraudster.
Re: (Score:2)
Well obviously (Score:2)
He's just some grifter wanting to lay his hands on trademarks and otherwise control the currency. If he were the real creator then it wouldn't be hard to present some evidence to back up that claim. Like an actual wallet containing billions of dollars worth of bitcoin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True too. Or he'd cash in some of the billions and present a prima facie case.
Public property (Score:2)
Bitcoin is free and clearly in the public domain, at least AFA UK is concerned
Banks, reserves and traders will be free to use Bitcoin to their platforms content( pun)
Do expect Satoshi tranche to move
High five... (Score:2)
That sounds like the wrong ruling (Score:2)
What he should have ruled is that "Craig Wright has not presented substantial evidence indicating....etc."
I think it possible that he is who he claims, even though I give it a very low probability.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's the 21st century's Tichborne Case [wikipedia.org]...
Re: (Score:3)
What he should have ruled is that "Craig Wright has not presented substantial evidence indicating....etc."
You mean except for the forged documents that Wright submitted. Except for the facts that Wright got wrong that Nakamoto knew. The court is calling it as it sees: There is overwhelming evidence that Wright is not Nakamoto. It is not he did not present enough evidence to convince the court; the evidence he presented led the court to believe he is not Nakamoto. The evidence COPA presented says he is not Nakamoto.
The forgeries alone were flagrant. In one case, Wright's former lawyers told the court that Wrigh
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I *do* give him an extremely low probability of being Nakamoto, but people make stupid mistakes and take stupid shortcuts...so I'm not certain. He could have just lost all the documentation, perhaps in an accidental fire. And then been greedy and stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I *do* give him an extremely low probability of being Nakamoto, but people make stupid mistakes and take stupid shortcuts...so I'm not certain. He could have just lost all the documentation, perhaps in an accidental fire. And then been greedy and stupid.
Let's go over "stupid mistakes" as you call it. Wright made a number of glaring mistakes (I call them lies) during the court case. For example, he testified to facts which were later shown to be false. Email evidence from Nakamoto would contradict that testimony. In the early days of Bitcoin, Nakamoto and Martti Malmi communicated privately sometimes by email. Since those emails were not made public until the case, only Nakamoto and Malmi would know what was said. And Wright clearly did not know what was in
What Wright really wants (Score:2)
What Wright really wants is money. At this point, he is probably best off with a 51% attack. I wish him luck with that.