Self-Proclaimed Bitcoin Inventor Lied 'Repeatedly' To Support Claim, Says UK Judge

An Australian computer scientist who claimed he invented bitcoin lied "extensively and repeatedly" and forged documents "on a grand scale" to support his false claim, a judge at London's High Court ruled on Monday. From a report: [...] Judge James Mellor ruled in March that the evidence Craig Wright was not Satoshi was "overwhelming", after a trial in a case brought by the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) to stop Wright suing bitcoin developers. Mellor gave reasons for his conclusions on Monday, stating in a written ruling: "Dr Wright presents himself as an extremely clever person. However, in my judgment, he is not nearly as clever as he thinks he is." The judge added: "All his lies and forged documents were in support of his biggest lie: his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto."

Simple to prove

[schneidafunk]

I'm not really into crypto, but couldn't the real inventor just make a transaction with the original coins minted to prove themselves?

Re:Simple to prove

[Geoffrey.landis]

I'm not really into crypto, but couldn't the real inventor just make a transaction with the original coins minted to prove themselves?

The original inventor has disappeared and has not responded in any way to Wright's claim.

But, yeah, the fact that Wright isn't able to control any of Satoshi Nakamoto's bitcoin holdings is one of the reasons we know that Wright is not Nakamoto.

Re:

[binarylarry]

He claims he lost the keys.

Re:

[saloomy]

Then he should call customer support and ask them to reset his password. /s

Re:

[ZipK]

He's been on hold for 12 years.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

Correction: He claims he destroyed the keys when he "stomped on a HDD" with them. But this was years after he told another court he sent himself the keys via bonded courier. Did he forget to tell the court he destroyed them years before?

Re:

[ArchieBunker]

Imagine losing the keys to 66,000 bitcoins.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

Yes but the easiest way is to sign a message with the private key. Wright refuses to do that publicly. He has done that in private sessions; however, some people are skeptical of these private sessions as some things could have been faked. Also Wright has changed his story about whether he even has the private keys.

In Kleiman v Wright (which started in 2018 in US), Wright said that trial was delayed as he sent himself the private keys via bonded courier to arrive in 2020. The court ruled he produced fictiti

Re:Simple to prove

[TheRealMindChild]

His cryptographic signing as proof he is Satoshi *were all fake*. And Wright is "refusing" because he doesn't HAVE the keys. He never did, and of course never will. Because he isn't Satoshi. However, the fact that he thought he could pull shit off without the actual Satoshi showing up, he KNOWS the real Satoshi is dead... whoever that was

concoin

[zlives]

doesn't this guy being a con artist prove he invented bitcoin? /s

Re:

[rahmrh]

That certainly adds to his qualifications for inventing bitcoin.

I'm shocked, I tell you!

[UnknowingFool]

You mean the same person that other courts in other countries ruled that he lied, was found to lie again? Shocking!

Kleiman v Wright (US) [casetext.com]: "Defendant 'has repeatedly lied under oath and submitted forged evidence.'"
Wright vs Hodlonaut (Norway) [coindesk.com]"Wright had lied and cheated in his attempt to prove that he is Satoshi Nakamoto"

Re:I'm shocked, I tell you!

[Jerrry]

Where did this guy get his Ph.D.? Trump University?

Charles Sturt University

[_merlin]

He got it from Charles Sturt University (CSU) in 2017, with thesis titled "The quantification of information systems risk". It isn't the most prestigious university in Australia by any means, but it isn't a diploma mill, either. He also claims to have obtained a doctorate in theology from United Theological College (UTC) in 2003. UTC is somehow affiliated with CSU.

Re:

[pavon]

Yes, though the association varies from +10 to +11 twice a year.

Re:

[arglebargle_xiv]

Doesn't mean much, con artists like Wright can manipulate their way into getting a thesis accepted in the same way they manipulate other things. For example I know one who wrote a few hundred pages of random gibberish, submitted it to a militant feminist department that was keen to get as many female PhDs minted as possible, and appointed her own examiner after it was rejected multiple times by legitimate examiners. Hey presto, here's your doctorate in Women's Studies!

I'm at least 95% certain I could hav

Re:

[_merlin]

Sure, anyone can get a PhD if they can be bothered going through the process of writing enough papers and turning them into a thesis. It can be somewhat difficult to obtain grants or a scholarship if there isn't an obvious path to commercialisation, but that isn't an issue if you have another source of income. There are plenty of useless PhDs that people obtained while being supported by their parents, or by working on the PhD part time while otherwise employed.

I didn't say he's made a useful contribution

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

Getting or not getting a PhD does signal whether someone is honest. I would however check Wright's thesis if I was his university.

Writght vs Hodlonaut?

[_merlin]

Hodlaunaut? Like an astronaut but in the HODL dimension?

Why though?

[JustNiz]

I mean, even if everyone believed him, what would he get out of it?

Re:

[smooth wombat]

Fame, fortune, book deals, interviews, etc. He might also claim that since he created BTC he should have control over it.

Re:Why though?

[UnknowingFool]

1) He has been trying to control the IP of Bitcoin. He's suing other coins that were based on the ideas of Bitcoin. 2) He wants his variant of Bitcoin called Bitcoin SV to be recognized as the one and "true" Bitcoin (Todays price: BSV $65.43, BTC $68096.50). 3) As the "inventor" of Bitcoin, he sued the current Bitcoin code developers to create a special provisions to reassign 110,000 coins that were stolen "from him".

One final hurdle

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

One more final appeal (and it's only if it's greenlit) and we're done with this fraud.

Re:One final hurdle

[jonbryce]

He can only appeal on a finding of law. This is a finding of fact, so that is going to be very difficult to do.

Re:One final hurdle

[UnknowingFool]

One good thing the court already did was order the freeze of his UK assets. In the UK system, loser pays so his opponents will get their legal fees covered. It's like the judge did not trust Wright would pay in the end.

Now everything is finally clear

[schwit1]

https://x.com/Rainmaker1973/st... [x.com]

Re:

[Opportunist]

Yeah, why not? Your request for a free pentest for your site (with results posted here for everyone's entertainment) is certainly not adding in any noticeable way to the level of scamming discussed in this thread.

Examples of lies cited by the court

[UnknowingFool]

1. The Tyche emails: COPA presented emails sent by [e-mail]. The emails undermined Wright in some way. Wright denied he wrote those the emails and that he ever worked for Tyche Consulting which owned the domain. COPA presented a signed employment contract between Wright and Tyche. The company confirmed that was his email address as an employee. Also one of Wright's own witnesses testified that he help arrange for Wright to work for the UK company. Wright still maintains an "imposter" sent emails from that account in 2015 while he was employed with Tyche
2. Dennis Mayaka emails: Wright presented emails sent from Dennis Mayaka, an individual living in Kenya, that supported his case. COPA pointed out the email address was not Mr Mayaka's professional account but one created in gmail. Also the emails were time stamped with London's time zone and not Kenya where Mr. Mayaka supposedly lived when the emails were sent. Craig Wright was in London at the time. The final clue was screenshots from Mr. Mayaka's "computer" appeared to have the exact same browser tabs that Wright's computer screenshot had in a different submission. The court concluded Wright sent emails to himself using a gmail account to try to fool the court.

Re:

[ledow]

Ouch. That's perjury.