Cloud Hosting

Key Takeaways

In a decisive verdict, a British High Court ruled against Craig Wrights claims that he was Bitcoin founder Satoshi Nakamoto.

In the detailed written declaration, the judge provided a comprehensive account of the trials proceedings. The ruling explicitly states that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto and outlines the reasons why his evidence was fraudulent.

In response to the March 14 ruling, COPA (Crypto Open Patent Alliance) took further legal steps to ensure Craig Wright can no longer assert his claims of being Satoshi Nakamoto. As stated by a COPA spokesperson, COPA is requesting a court order designed to avoid further litigation terror campaigns. This move is aimed at preventing Wright from continuing to assert his claims, which the court found were untrue.

The recently released written verdict explains why Wrights evidence was deemed fraudulent and clarifies that he is not Satoshi Nakamoto. The comprehensive nature of this verdict aims to put an end to the ongoing disputes and prevent Wright from perpetuating his claims in the future.

Mr Justice Mellor expressed no doubt about Wrights dishonesty throughout the trial, highlighting the extensive forgery involved. Despite the ruling, Wright remained defiant, announcing his intention to appeal the decision.

During the court trial, Mr Justice Mellor tried to be as objective as he could. However, he found that Wright was not nearly as clever as he thinks he is. One could, potentially, describe the judges words as extremely diplomatic.

In the COPA vs. Craig Wright case, Mr Justice Mellor found that Wright lied extensively and repeatedly to the court, both in his written and oral evidence, primarily concerning forged documents intended to support his claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto. These falsehoods were part of Wrights broader attempt to substantiate his identity as the creator of Bitcoin.

He said:

Dr Wright presents himself as an extremely clever person. However, in my judgment, he is not nearly as clever as he thinks he is. In both his written evidence and in days of oral evidence under cross-examination, I am entirely satisfied that Dr Wright lied to the Court extensively and repeatedly. Most of his lies related to the documents he had forged which purported to support his claim. All his lies and forged documents were in support of his biggest lie: his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

Mr Justice Mellor added:

As soon as one lie was exposed, Dr Wright resorted to further lies and evasions. The final destination frequently turned out to be either Dr Wright blaming some other (often unidentified) person for his predicament or what can only be described as technobabble delivered by him in the witness box.

Although as a person with expertise in IT security, Dr Wright must have thought his forgeries would provide convincing evidence to support his claim to be Satoshi or some other point of detail and would go undetected, the evidence showsthat most of his forgeries turned out to be clumsy.

Indeed, certain of Dr Wrights responses in cross-examination effectively acknowledged that point: from my recollection at least twice he indicated if he had wanted to forge a document, he would have done a much better job.

The judge concluded that for Wrights claims to be true, he would have to be very unlucky. The evidence, however, painted a different picture, revealing a pattern of deceit and forgery in his attempts to prove his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto.

He added:

The true position is far simpler. It is, however, far from simple because Dr Wright has lied so much over so many years that, on certain points, it can be difficult to pinpoint what actually happened.

Those difficulties do not detract from the fact that there is a very considerable body of evidence against Dr Wright being Satoshi. To the extent that it is said there is evidence supporting his claim, it is at best questionable or of very dubious relevance or entirely circumstantial and at worst, it is fabricated and/or based on documents I am satisfied have been forged on a grand scale by Dr Wright.

These fabrications and forgeries were exposed in the evidence which I received during the Trial. For that reason, this Judgment contains considerable technical and other detail which is required to expose the true scale of his mendacious campaign to prove he was/is Satoshi Nakamoto.

In his ruling on the COPA vs. Craig Wright case, Mr Justice Mellor highlighted significant inconsistencies in Dr. Wrights testimony.

Mr Justice Mellor said:

Furthermore, in his evidence, Dr Wright made significant errors which Satoshi would never have made, even after this length of time. Some of these relate to Satoshis interactions with individuals not previously made public. Others relate to technical matters which Dr Wright simply got wrong but which Satoshi would not have got wrong.

Also, Mr Justice Mellor said Wright had many years to substantiate his claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto. However, as challenges to his claim intensified, Wright escalated his use of falsehoods and forged documents.

The judge noted that Wrights behavior, characterized by increasing arrogance and a belief in his intellectual superiority, starkly contrasted with the more humble and collaborative tone evident in Satoshis writings. Judge concluded that Wrights demeanor and the nature of his evidence were inconsistent with that of Satoshi Nakamoto, further undermining his claim to be the creator of Bitcoin.

He said:

Ultimately, I consider it is likely that the real Satoshi would never have set out to prove in litigation that he actually was Satoshi and certainly not in the way that Dr Wright attempted to do so.

Since 2019, Craig Wright has initiated several lawsuits against Bitcoin developers in an attempt to gain control over the Bitcoin network and suppress critics of his claims. The Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund has argued that these lawsuits threaten the future of Bitcoin by discouraging developers from continuing their work on the blockchain.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Mellor acknowledged the negative impact of Wrights aggressive legal strategies on the Bitcoin development community.

He noted that Wrights litigious approach was inconsistent with the collaborative and non-confrontational nature typically associated with Satoshi Nakamoto. Judge Mellor pointed out that the real Satoshi would likely have accepted differing views, which led to Bitcoins hard forks, and moved on without resorting to legal action. This recognition of Wrights adversarial tactics further supported the courts decision in favor of COPA.

Mr Justice Mellor was pretty clear when giving his final word:

He stated:

First, Dr Wright is not the author of the Bitcoin White Paper. Second, Dr Wright is not the person who adopted or operated under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto in the period between 2008 and 2011. Third, Dr Wright is not the person who created the Bitcoin system. Fourth, Dr Wright is not the author of the initial versions of the Bitcoin Software.

The ruling represents a significant victory for the COPA, which sought to invalidate Wrights claims to the Bitcoin whitepaper and related intellectual property.

Wrights vow to appeal the ruling suggests that this legal saga is far from over. His legal team is expected to challenge Mr Justice Mellors conclusions. This decision follows a series of legal and public relations setbacks for Wright, who has faced numerous accusations of fraud and forgery over the years.

Following the March 14 ruling against him, Craig Wright initially stated he would evaluate his options once the final written verdict was released. Despite the judges verdict, it is evident Wright intends to carry on claiming that he is Satoshi Nakamoto.

Was this Article helpful? Yes No

See the original post here:

Craig Wright "Slippery" and "Not as Clever as He Thinks He is" Judge Blasts Would-be Satoshi Nakamoto - CCN.com

U.K. Judge James Mellors written ruling that Craig Wright isnt Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous author of the 2008 Bitcoin white paper, has (predictably) set off a celebratory deluge of dunking from the social media accounts of Wrights longtime critics.

But the reality is that the tweets and blog posts slamming Wright have never really stopped since Mellor issued his initial rulingin mid-March. And its unlikely that Mellors written ruling will mark the end of these attacks.

Because the fight against Wright was never about him. It was all about stopping further adoption of the BSV Blockchaintechnology he supports. Thats because BSV, unless sabotaged by external forces, poses an existential threat to the technologies promoted by the members of the Crypto Open Patent Alliance(COPA) that brought the suit against Wright.

Due to Wrights high profile, COPA appears to have elevated him into being BSV. Stop Wright, their thinking went, and BSV will be forced to follow him offstage. Their reasoning here was way off base, but that shouldnt be all that surprising given how badly they also misinterpreted Satoshis plan for Bitcoin.

COPAs members are in lockstep agreement that Bitcoindespite the white paper defining it as peer-to-peer electronic cashwas never intended to serve as a global currency. Instead, Bitcoin was meant to be digital gold that doesnt do anything beyond (allegedly) perpetually increase in value. Thats the mindset that led the developers at BTC Core to strip the Bitcoin protocol down to its barest bones, resulting in the BTC token they promote with such zeal.

BSV supporters, on the other hand, believe that Bitcoinin the form of BSV, the only locked protocol that remains true to Satoshis original blueprint and can trace its unbroken history back to the Genesis blockcan easily serve as a low-cost digital payment system.

Furthermore, BSVs unparalleled ability to scale allows it to handle the immense data management needs of enterprises, government agencies and Web3 applications at a cost that makes such systems not just feasible but desirable.

Which is why COPA and other similarly deluded prospectors wont stop their attacks. By proving that Bitcoin is capable of delivering actual utility, disrupting both the ad-driven model of Silicon Valleys social media giants and the U.S.-based digital payment models, BSV offers a welcome alternative and exposes the rot at the core of these movements.

Utility v. futility

BTCs reputation took some serious hits this month due to the unprecedented direct attacks by Iran against Israel followed by Israels retaliatory strikes. In both instances, BTCs value cratered as sellers sought refuge in more stable products, aka fiat cash, directly undermining the safe haven mantra so relentlessly promoted by the digital gold team.

Take Michael Saylor, founder of COPA member MicroStrategy (NASDAQ: MSTR) and owner of around 1% of all the BTC that will ever be issued. With his entire net worth caught up in BTC, its perhaps no surprise that Saylor is the biggest booster of the digital gold myth, to the point that hes been accused of threatening to retaliate against anyone who dares suggest that BTC might be good for anything else.

Matt Odell, managing partner of BTC infrastructure investment outfit Ten31, recently posted a cryptic all-caps noteon decentralized social media protocol Nostr that claimed Saylor HAS ACTIVELY KILLED DEALS TO SUPPORT DEVS. HE IS PROUD OF IT.

Odell previously claimedthat ONE OF THE BIG ETFs [exchange traded funds] WAS GOING TO DONATE TO OPEN SOURCE DEVS. SAYLOR TOLD THEM IF THEY DID IT HE WOULD CRUSH THEM SO THEY PULLED OUT OF THE COMMITMENT.

Whatever the reality behind these claims, Saylor did go on CNBCseveral weeks prior to declare that people refer to [BTC] as a digital currency, and thats an unfortunate historical artifact. Saylor likened BTC to digital property and argued that BTC doesnt have to be a currency. Nobodys trying to buy a cup of coffee with a fraction of their building on Fifth Avenue.

Saylors defense mechanisms appear sufficiently robust to allow him to deny evidence that directly contradicts those beliefs. For instance, Saylor tweeted Chaos is good following Irans recent military strike against Israel, even as BTC shed more than 10% of its value.

The reality is that BTC is a hobbled former shell of Bitcoin and thats just the way everybody in BTC seems to want it. Well, they can have it. They can and will continue to talk about Wright, for all the good it will do them. No one in BSV is thinking all that much about COPA v Wright; the focus here is where its always been: real-world utility.

By contrast, the rest of the crypto sector is stagnant. Nobody wants to do anything but make lots of money in the shortest period possible without doing anything of benefit to anyone else. Relentless hype cycles drive tokens higher and instill FOMO in the general public, followed by the inevitable crash in which the noobs get rekt and the whole process resets.

Take the current memecoin madness on Solana. Its like the whole 2017 initial coin offering (ICO) debacle never happened. Except this time the coin issuers arent even bothering with white papers detailing how their project will change the world.

As Travis Kling remarked earlier this year, I actually think there is LESS expectation this time around that any of this shit does anything or will EVER do anything People want to gamble on vaporware and next year looks like a good year to be in the casino.

Cult following

COPA and its minions like to portray BSV as the Cult of Craig. If anyone is trapped in a Cult of Craig its COPA. Theyre the ones who cant seem to escape the hypnotic control he appears to wield over them.

It would be far more accurate to describe BSV as the Cult of Satoshi. BSV supporters seem to be the only ones that believe Satoshi was right and that when he departed the stage, he left us his blueprints, which are all we need to understand what were building and where were going.

COPA and their ilk all think Satoshi was wrong, that they know better the intentions behind his creation. BSV backers know that Satoshis vision was rooted in utilitybe it for low-cost microtransactions or data processingnot establishing a new category of financial elites.

If you really want to know why the BSV community was willing to listen to Wright in the first place, ask yourself this: who else at that time was advocating for a return to Bitcoins original vision? Who else was offering a utility-focused alternative to number go up?

The tires on a Formula 1 might be a wonder of modern technology but for all their engineering wizardry, nobodys really improved on the wheels original conceptor purpose. No ones trying to reinvent the wheel because reinvention is unnecessary if you got it right the first time. That is, unless youd prefer the wheel be some proprietary technology that only you control.

Perhaps its nave to believe that the world will ultimately coalesce around a single blockchain. But well keep working towards that goal regardless, based on our belief that when the world is ready, BSV will be there. Whatever Wrights faults, he will ultimately be vindicated as his faith in the original Bitcoin technology proves correct.

By staying true to the original Bitcoin protocol, BSV is the only blockchain that can rightly be labeled Bitcoin. As such, in a post-Mellor world, people have one of two options: believe the judge is wrong and Wright is Satoshi and Satoshi created BSV, or believe the judge is right and Wright is not Satoshi and Satoshi created BSV. Either way, Satoshi invented Bitcoin and BSV is the worlds only enterprise blockchain.

Well leave you with a quote from this sites founder, Calvin Ayre:

An English court has concluded that Craig is not Satoshi. Despite this, the fact remains that Craig was a driving force behind realizing Satoshis vision through the BSV blockchain. He was the only individual that seemed interested in fulfilling Satoshis vision of a scalable blockchain that enabled low-cost peer-to-peer payments.

We accept the decision that COPAs mysterious unknown Satoshi invented BSV because its never really mattered to us who Satoshi was. All that matters is the amazing vision he/she had. The further development of that vision will ensure that the technology writes the true historyas well as the future. Long live Satoshi.

New to blockchain? Check out CoinGeeks Blockchain for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about blockchain technology.

Go here to see the original:

The Cult of Satoshi: Like its creator, BSV faithful are in it purely for the tech - CoinGeek

UK Justice James Mellor minced no words slamming Dr. Craig Wright, a computer scientist who has tried to prove he is Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto.

Wright has claimed for years to be Nakamoto, taking his claims to court in an effort to be legally recognized as Bitcoins creator and reap the financial rewards that would come with the recognition. Justice Mellors ruling came in the civil trial brought by Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) aimed at disproving Wright is Nakamoto and crippling his ability to continue suing crypto companies.

Thus, Dr Wright presents himself as an extremely clever person, Justice Mellor wrote. However, in my judgment, he is not nearly as clever as he thinks he is. In both his written evidence and in days of oral evidence under cross-examination, I am entirely satisfied that Dr Wright lied to the Court extensively and repeatedly. Most of his lies related to the documents he had forged which purported to support his claim. All his lies and forged documents were in support of his biggest lie: his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

Many of Dr Wrights lies contained a grain of truth (which is sometimes said to be the mark of an accomplished liar), but there were many which did not and were outright lies, Justice Mellor added. As soon as one lie was exposed, Dr Wright resorted to further lies and evasions. The final destination frequently turned out to be either Dr Wright blaming some other (often unidentified) person for his predicament or what can only be described as technobabble delivered by him in the witness box.

Interestingly, after hearing the mountain of evidence submitted in the trial, Justice Mellor has his own opinion on the age-old question of whether Nakamoto is a single individual or if the pseudonym was used by a group of people.

Satoshi Nakamoto was and remains a pseudonym, he wrote. Although this is not of any significant weight in my overall conclusion, my personal view, having heard all the evidence in this Trial, is that it is likely that a number of people contributed to the creation of Bitcoin, albeit that there may well have been one central individual. It would therefore be accurate to refer to Satoshi as he/she/they to reflect the possibilities, but unwieldy. I will therefore refer to Satoshi simply as he, but it is a shorthand for he/she/they.

Needless to say, Wright has already indicated he intends to appeal the ruling.

I fully intend to appeal the decision of the court on the matter of the identity issue. I would like to acknowledge and thank all my supporters for their unwavering encouragement and support. In the meantime, I shall continue to work closely with the Teranode team to achieve scaling beyond three million transactions per second. At present, Teranode is achieving one million tps and we are ensuring that the cloud-based server configurations function correctly in a way that does not impact scaling. However, even at a lower level of transaction processing, Teranode is far more efficient than the existing node structure and will lead to cost savings as well as a path to scalability.

^Posted by LB on behalf of CSW.

Dr. Craig S Wright (@Dr_CSWright) | May 20, 2024

Original post:

UK Judge Slams Craig Wright, Says Scientist Lied 'Extensively' About Being Bitcoin Creator - WebProNews