Wright's Archives -
In Los Feliz, billionaire Ron Burkle has sold Frank Lloyd Wright’s famed Ennis House for $ 18 million, down $ 5 million from his original price tag.
According to documents from the U.K.’s High Court of Justice published on July 31, a judge has denied Craig Wright’s libel lawsuit against Roger Ver. Wright filed the charge against Ver when the early bitcoin investor told the public he believed Wright was a “liar and a fraud.” However, the court found “no evidence at all of any actual reputational harm” and further emphasized that the England and Wales court system wasn’t the “most appropriate place” to bring the claim handle on such complaints.
No Objective Evidence of Any Harm to Reputation
An England and Wales High Court Judge ruled against Craig Wright’s libel lawsuit against Bitcoin.com’s Roger Ver this week. According to the U.K. judge, Wright failed to produce and has not satisfied the court with objective evidence of any harm to his reputation in England and Wales. In consequence, “the court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the action,” Judge Nicklin ruled. Wright and his legal team decided to serve Ver in London with a suit at a Bitcoin Cash meetup in May. The lawsuit claimed Ver had defamed Wright and asserted that Ver’s statements hurt his reputation.
At the time, Decrypt Media was present at the BCH meetup and asked Ver if he was worried about the lawsuit. “I’m not worried one bit. I’m annoyed that I have to spend some money on the lawsuit rather than hire one developer to build more tools to bring more economic freedom to the world,” Ver explained to the media outlet. He told the publication that Wright’s litigation tactics weren’t helping the reputation of Bitcoin SV (BSV) and said the bad press would hurt the coin’s growth. “If you’re busy suing everybody, people aren’t going to be your friend. It’s that simple. Look at the lawsuits, all the exchanges that delisted BSV,” Ver noted.
The libel suit didn’t work out for Wright as the action was “struck out” and he must also bear Ver’s legal fees. The justice presiding over the case said Wright’s legal counsel presented weak evidence. “In my judgment, the claimant’s evidence as to the extent of harm that the publications have caused (or are likely to cause) is weak, lacks detail and the three paragraphs I have set out, put forward evidence at a level of generality that is almost entirely speculative,” Judge Nicklin said. The U.K. Justice continued:
There is no objective evidence of any harm to reputation in England and Wales. The claimant has failed completely to address whether and to what extent the publications complained of have harmed his reputation in other jurisdictions.
Bitcoin Is a Global Community
Judge Nicklin further stated that there is no evidence at all of any actual reputational harm that Wright has suffered as a result of any of Ver’s publications. The judge also said that he accepted the fact that Wright filed the case in England and Wales for convenience because he lived in the U.K. “Nevertheless, these are minor factors which carry little weight when assessed against the extent of publication and harm to reputation,” the judge conceded.
“In my judgment, [Wright] has failed to demonstrate that, judged in terms of harm to reputation, England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place to bring this defamation claim,” Nicklin ruled. Moreover, Judge Nicklin said that the Ver’s remarks were not addressed to citizens located in England and Wales, but rather the cryptocurrency community in general.
“In reality, the Defendant addressed his remarks to the global Bitcoin community, not any sector of it exclusively in the UK. It is true that the claimant has been resident in the UK since 2015, but has little to do with the issue of targeting,” the Judge detailed. “The message in the publications complained of would have been targeted at him in whatever jurisdiction he lived. These were global publications disseminated on global platforms.”
It is uncertain how the decision against Wright’s defamation claims against Ver will affect the other lawsuits he started. In addition to Roger Ver, Hodlonaut, and Peter McCormack, BSV supporters also said John McAfee would be served alongside Ethereum cofounder Vitalik Buterin. Wright is also dealing with a lawsuit in Florida, where he is accused of manipulating billions of dollars worth of assets that allegedly belonged to the now-deceased David Kleiman. In that case, another self-proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto came forward with a written letter to the court and the Kleiman estate’s expert witness has accused Wright of modifying and backdating documents.
With the dismissed libel lawsuit against Ver, Judge Nicklin said that Wright had explained his efforts to file a copyright registration for the Bitcoin whitepaper in the U.S. but mentioned that these details were not “particularly material.” The judge noted during his conclusion that Bitcoin is not represented by a specific country of users. “I would note here that Bitcoin is a global cryptocurrency and, likewise, the Bitcoin community that [Wright] described in his statement is a global community, not one limited to the UK.”
What do you think about the Judge ruling against Craig Wright’s libel case against Roger Ver? Do you think he will also be defeated in his libel claims against Hodlonaut, Peter McCormick, John McAfee, and Vitalik Buterin? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below.
Image credits: Shutterstock, Bailii.org, and Pixabay.
The post UK Judge Strikes Out Craig Wright’s Libel Lawsuit Against Roger Ver appeared first on Bitcoin News.
The Kleiman v. Wright case continues this week and a slew of new evidence has been submitted to the Southern District of Florida courthouse. A supplemental affidavit stemming from the Kleiman estate’s expert witness, Dr. Matthew Edman, indicates that documents submitted to the court as evidence were “modified” and “backdated.”
Plaintiff’s Analysis of Documents Shows David Kleiman’s PGP Signature Was Created Almost a Year After He Died
A transcript of an affidavit was recently submitted to the Kleiman v. Wright (9:18-cv-80176) court case, which shows that an expert witness found many flaws within certain documents filed in the case. The billion-dollar bitcoin lawsuit is one of the most high profile court cases in the U.S. because it involves 1 million BTC and self-proclaimed ‘Bitcoin inventor’ Craig Wright. Since December 2015, the crypto community has endured Wright’s repeated claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto. However, nearly every claim and every so-called proof Wright has provided has been debunked by researchers, cryptographers, and the greater crypto community. Many of the refutations against Wright’s story accuse him of providing backdated documents and proofs that have been modified at a later date. From the very beginning of Wright’s entrance into the community, his story has been suspected of being a falsified tale or hoax. On December 9, 2015, Vice reporter Sarah Jeong detailed that the “PGP keys referenced in stories naming Craig Wright as the creator of Bitcoin were probably falsely backdated.”
Fast forward to today and Craig Wright is being sued by Ira Kleiman, the brother of the now deceased David Kleiman, for allegedly interfering with David’s bitcoin assets and intellectual property after he died. The first filing shows the value of the assets the Kleiman family thinks David was screwed out of is around $ 5.1 billion before punitive or treble damages. This week, an affidavit was submitted to the court that shows the testimony of the Kleiman estate’s witness, Dr. Matthew Edman, a cryptography expert.
As other have mentioned, Bitmessage wasn’t even publicly available until November 12th 2012. Furthermore, the only visible address is a v4 address (as it begins with 2c) and those didn’t even exist until about mid-2013.
— Peter Šurda (@PeterSurda) July 4, 2019
According to Edman’s resume submitted to the court, he has a deep knowledge of digital forensics, applied cryptography, Shamir’s Secret Sharing Scheme, and cryptocurrencies. Edman’s testimony examines an email that was submitted to the court as “Exhibit A.” Edman declares under penalty of perjury that he believes Exhibit A was likely created from an email Wright sent to himself on or about April 16, 2014. The document was then “converted to a PDF and modified to appear to have been sent from ‘Dave Kleiman’ to Uyen Nguyen on or about December 20, 2012.” The expert’s testimony further states:
I also determined that Exhibit A contained a PGP signature allegedly created by Dave Kleiman on or about March 12, 2014 – almost a year after he died.
A Trend of Modifications
Edman states that he analyzed Exhibit A previously and further analysis and forensic artifacts contained within the PDF itself bolster his opinion. The digital forensics expert said that he also examined “Exhibit F” and concluded that the document was “created by further modifying Exhibit A to make it appear as if Exhibit F is actually a separate email sent from Dave Kleiman to Uyen Nguyen.” “In my opinion, it is simply another revision to the PDF created from an email the defendant sent to himself on or about April 16, 2014,” Edman emphasized in his testimony. The witness’s affidavit declares that both Exhibit A and Exhibit F appear to be emails sent from David to Uyen Nguyen back in 2012, but “manipulations of a PDF created from an email” indicate that Wright sent it to himself in the spring of 2014. Edman noted that he understands that Exhibit A was withdrawn from the court because Wright could not “verify the date of that email exchange,” but to his knowledge Exhibit F was not withdrawn.
Edman goes on to explain that the metadata tied to the first exhibit’s PDF shows that it was created on or about April 17, 2014. The creator used the Acrobat PDF Maker 11 for Microsoft Outlook and Edman highlights that the computer’s time zone was consistent with Sydney, Australia (UTC+10) and then modified again five minutes later. Further analysis of the internal contents and structure of the document identified specific portions of the PDF were edited and revised. He further determined that Exhibit F was also comprised of modifications to the date field and revisions to the body of the document as well. Speaking on Exhibit A’s analysis Kleiman’s expert witness explained:
I identified a “TouchUp_TextEdit” marked-content point in the PDF file associated with Exhibit A which indicated that the text associated with the “From:”, “To:”, and “Date:” fields at the top of Exhibit A were edited.
The crypto community has not been kind about the latest documents and Edman’s affidavit has been shared widely across social media mocking Wright. The attorney Stephen Palley who often comments on cryptocurrency related lawsuits stated “you can’t really attack [Edman’s] credentials and the analysis looks sound.” “You have to show an alternative explanation — they should settle,” Palley added. The public will still hear from Wright’s expert witnesses which include Brett Roberson, Kevin Madura, and Nchain’s CTO Steve Shadders.
In addition to the court case drama last week, news.Bitcoin.com reported that Martti Malmi said on Twitter that he might take action against Wright for accusing him of starting the “Silk Road, Hydra and a number of other darker websites.” “Taking a closer look to the transcript, Craig Wright is accusing me and Theymos of soliciting drug trade, assassinations, terrorism and child porn — That is too much to be ignored,” Malmi told the public. Following the accusations against Malmi, the owner of Bitcointalk.org, Theymos, also refuted Wright’s court claims against him stemming from the June 28 transcript. “I was made a forum admin in 2011 after Satoshi left,” Theymos insisted.
“I never had any interaction with CSW — CSW’s whole shtick is to just lie constantly,” the forum moderator conceded. “He’s so brazen about it that some people think, ‘there must be some truth there,’ but really it’s 100% nonsense.”
What do you think about the Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit involving billions of dollars worth of bitcoin? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below.
The post Expert Witness in Satoshi Case Claims Dr Wright’s Documents Were Doctored appeared first on Bitcoin News.
Last week, Craig Wright, the man who claims he’s Satoshi Nakamoto, appeared in court and testified why he did not have access to his public bitcoin addresses and trust information. Since then a lot of new evidence has been submitted to the court and members of the crypto community have dissected Wright’s recent testimony and the newly filed documentation.
The $ 5 Billion Dollar Bitcoin Lawsuit Continues to Unfold
For years now, Australian native Craig Wright has told the public that he invented Bitcoin and tried to submit evidence to prove that he is who he says he is. However, a great number of cryptography experts and well known bitcoiners have discredited nearly all of his claims to the point where individuals have called him a fraud. The Kleiman v. Wright case involves the now deceased Florida computer forensics expert Dave Kleiman.
The reason David is involved is because much of the evidence provided to the court involves Kleiman and Wright’s multi-year business relationship. After David passed away, allegedly Wright reached out to the family and explained to them that he and David were involved with the creation of Bitcoin and how they both mined large amounts of bitcoin during the early years. Now, Ira Kleiman, on behalf of David’s estate, is accusing Wright of interfering with David’s bitcoin assets and intellectual property after he died. The Kleiman estate’s complaint reads:
This matter concerns the rightful ownership of hundreds of thousands of bitcoins and the valuable intellectual property rights of various blockchain technologies. As of the date of filing, the value of these assets far exceed $ 5,118,266,427.50 USD (before punitive or treble damages).
The court case started in February 2018 and involves billions of dollars worth of BTC that allegedly exist in a blind trust called the “Tulip Trust.” Kleiman’s litigation team have asked Wright to produce bitcoin addresses and trust information, but so far the plaintiff’s counsel say he has failed to comply. The hearing on June 28 was held to understand why Wright and his attorneys believe he should not be held in contempt for failing to produce what the court has ordered him to procure.
When Wright was asked why he hasn’t provided a list of the public addresses to the plaintiffs, he explained that “there are no public addresses in the Bitcoin system.” Wright insisted to the court that public addresses “don’t exist” and claimed there are no public addresses at all in Bitcoin. “Bitcoin was derived such that a key would only be used once — And if you look at the section in the whitepaper, later on, it states that as an additional firewall, keys should not be reused,” Wright responded.
Accusations Aimed at the Creator of Bitcoin.org
When Wright was asked if he was familiar with the Bitcoin system, he said that he was familiar with the system he created and he claims to have “used the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto” during this time. Again, Wright was then asked whether he could provide the public addresses at the hearing. “If I could, I would have not given the first 70 addresses — I would have given every other address,” Wright responded further. “The first 70 addresses associate me as Satoshi — I did not want to be associated with Satoshi.” Wright was then asked to explain why he stopped acting as the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto and he claimed that it all started after the creation of Bitcoin.org. Wright then went on to accuse Martti Malmi and Theymos of starting the “Silk Road, Hydra and a number of other darker websites” along with Ross Ulbricht. Wright’s testimony stated that these websites and forums were created to foster drug sales, weapons, child pornography, and assassination markets.
Apparently CSW has claimed in court that I cofounded Silk Road and worked “to allow assassination markets”. For the record: that is obviously a made up accusation. https://t.co/lAdFhsLoHH
— Martti Malmi (@marttimalmi) July 6, 2019
After reading the transcript, early Bitcoin developer Martti Malmi went on record and said Wright’s claims were “obviously made up accusations.” During the tweet thread, at first Malmi said he was leaning toward not responding back with a libel and defamation lawsuit. It seems Malmi hasn’t made up his mind, however, and from further comments, he may retaliate against these accusations.
“Then again, would be good to see justice served and him not getting away with outright slander,” Malmi explained. The former Bitcoin developer stated:
Taking a closer look to the transcript, Craig Wright is accusing me and Theymos of soliciting drug trade, assassinations, terrorism and child porn — That is too much to be ignored. I want to thank everyone for the support I’ve received and I’ve already got some suggestions about where to start, but recommendations for good lawyers, etc. are welcome.
Wizsec Dissects Wright’s Testimony and Alleged Forgeries
After Wright’s transcript was published, Bitcoin security specialists Wizsec analyzed his testimony and found many flaws. Wizsec discussed how Kleiman’s lawyer had focused on an email produced by Wright in discovery that allegedly is a forgery. The email is a PDF that was purportedly sent by David Kleiman on June 24, 2011. Kleiman’s lawyer presented the PDF and explained that even though it says it was created in July 2011, the software used to write the metadata in the document stems from software that had not launched until the summer of 2012.
Moreover, Wizsec’s analysis says that the PDF document at the very least must have been modified somehow at some point. “Indeed the PDF metadata lists a modification date of October 22, 2014, which Wright himself identifies — Wright denies modifying the PDF at that time,” Wizsec writes. Kleiman’s lawyer noted that the PDF contained a string of code that further suggested the document was modified at some point. Then Wright claimed the Kleiman counsel submitted a forgery and tossed the document in the air and the judge gave him a warning.
“All the evidence presented by the plaintiff raise significant doubts as to the authenticity of this supposed email from Dave Kleiman,” Wizsec’s research notes. “No legitimate document should show this many signs of manipulation, and even if Wright denies that he forged anything, all of this is hurting the credibility of any other documents Wright’s side has submitted, if not Wright’s own credibility.”
Following the email discussion, Kleiman’s lawyer then discussed a PDF called the deed of trust. According to the transcript, the plaintiff’s forensics expert extracted metadata from the PDF which shows it was embedded with the Calibri font created in 2015. But Wright and even some of his dedicated followers believe that the Calibri font got an update and any PDF would pick up the new font after the fact.
Indeed, many of Wright’s fans have dismissed all of the claims against him and even Wright himself is attempting to sue certain people for calling him a fraud. One Wright supporter on Twitter has been tracking all of the negative comments against Wright on the social media platform. “If you’re spreading lies on Twitter, you better hope your opsec is the best and you have lawyers on retainer,” the user warned. Meanwhile, there are many bitcoiners assessing the court drama and have rebuked all of Wright’s documents and claims of being Satoshi. Adding more insult to injury, this week an unidentified person bought the domain name Loser.com allegedly for $ 21,000 and the website now directs to Craig Steven Wright’s Wikipedia page.
Just published Proof-of-Perjury? on Medium. Kleiman v. Craig Wright case https://t.co/MqKDGZyCuR
— SeekingSatoshi (@jimmy007forsure) July 7, 2019
The Court’s Verdict Could Come Soon
During the hearing, Kleiman’s attorney continued to ask Wright about a slew of documents that were seemingly modified at a later date, an email that Wright allegedly sent to himself, and a bunch of other document discrepancies. In addition to Wizsec’s examination, Daniel Kelman, an attorney who often discusses cryptocurrency cases, also wrote an extremely detailed post about Wright’s latest testimony. Kelman said that Wright fully understands how to produce public addresses and the court order was very clear. However, in his opinion Wright failed to produce the addresses and comply with the order and did so “willfully,” Kelman emphasized. The attorney at law said there will be a second hearing later this summer and he expects the other witnesses to be heard and more discussions in regard to certain technical exhibits.
“After this hearing, the court will issue its verdict — As discussed previously, this could result in fines or a six-month incarceration for Wright,” Kelman wrote. “The court can issue a default judgment to Kleiman or can issue the lesser remedy of preventing Wright from contesting these matters, which would all but hand the case to Kleiman.” The lawyer continued:
Based on Wright’s performance at the June 28 hearing and the court has already established grounds for contempt against him, I don’t see this going in Wright’s favor.
The Kleiman v Wright case could end soon, but the court still needs to hear from Wright’s expert witnesses including Brett Roberson, Kevin Madura, and Nchain developer Steve Shadders. The date for this proceeding has not been chosen yet, but both parties must appear in court before Judge Beth Bloom on July 10. So far there’s been a lot of evidence against Wright’s claims and documents submitted to the court as well as the crypto community’s continued grievances against him.
Wizsec and others have discredited Wright’s technical explanations many times in the past and continue to believe he has lied many times and obfuscated his story by using “technobabble.” “Word salad is not meant to help a less technical audience understand, but to keep it from understanding or questioning,” Wizsec’s analysis detailed. The paper concludes:
This is a basic scammer’s trick; the “con” in con artist stands for confidence, after all — Keeping an open mind is nice and all, but that requires active critical thinking and that you do your own research properly so you don’t get taken advantage of. If someone has been caught lying 999 times, you’re not obligated to keep an open mind for number one thousand.
What do you think about the Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit involving billions of dollars worth of bitcoin? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below.
Feel like you missed something? Check out our full coverage of the Kleiman v. Wright case here:
- Craig “Satoshi” Wright Sued for Billions
- Craig Wright Shrugs Off Plagiarism Accusations
- Judge Denies Craig Wright’s Motion to Dismiss Billion-Dollar Bitcoin Lawsuit
- Jeff Garzik Subpoenaed in Kleiman Bitcoin Lawsuit Against Craig Wright
- Kleiman Estate Says Satoshi Reveal ‘Is Relevant’ in Billion Dollar Bitcoin Lawsuit
- Uyen T Nguyen: The Powerful Young Woman Behind the Alleged ‘Satoshi Affair’
- Self-Styled Satoshi Accused of PGP Forgery in Kleiman vs Wright Lawsuit
- Craig Wright Ordered to Produce a List of Early Bitcoin Addresses in Kleiman Lawsuit
- Blockchain Researchers Mock Craig Wright’s Unsealed Bitcoin Address List
- The Blind Trust Described in the Kleiman vs. Wright Lawsuit Is a Real Head-Scratcher
- Judge Orders Craig Wright to Appear in Florida Lawsuit
- Kleiman Attorney: ‘Craig Wright Hasn’t Complied With the Order to List His Bitcoin’
- Craig Wright Intends to Call Three Expert Witnesses to His Evidentiary Hearing
- Bitcoin ‘Inventor’ Craig Wright Claims He Can’t Access Coins in Court Testimony
Image credits: Shutterstock, Twitter, Pixabay, Courtlistener, Pacer, and Reddit.
The post Experts Dissect Craig Wright’s ‘Satoshi’ Testimony and Court Documents appeared first on Bitcoin News.
On May 21, 2019, a press release was sent to a variety of publications that said Craig Wright was granted two U.S. copyrights for the original Bitcoin white paper and version 0.1 of the cryptocurrency’s code. Meanwhile, the U.S. Copyright Office specifically addressed the matter in a press release which emphasized the agency “does not investigate the truth of any statement made.”
Craig Wright’s Copyright Proof Attempt Fails to Sway the Greater Crypto Community
Yesterday the crypto community was up in arms after Craig Wright detailed that he was granted two U.S. copyrights for the Bitcoin white paper and code. The two copyrights can be seen publicly with registration no. TXu 2-136-996 and also no. TX-8-708-058. Of course, most digital asset enthusiasts thought the effort was yet another lackluster attempt from Wright to try and prove he’s Satoshi. Many individuals on social media simply laughed at the copyright announcement. Alongside this, a few other crypto community members detailed that the copyrights were meaningless. Coin Center founder Jerry Brito explained that the U.S. Copyright Office does not investigate the validity of claims like these and they simply just register it. “Unfortunately there is no official way to challenge a registration — If there are competing claims, the Office will just register all of them,” Brito added.
Moreover, back when Satoshi released the protocol, the code was released under the open source MIT license. This means that Bitcoin is free to distribute the software to any individual or organization and everyone has no limitations to what they can do with the software. Essentially anyone can use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and fork the Bitcoin software.
Furthermore, there is a copyright notice from Satoshi established under the MIT licensing back in 2009, which gives developers the freedom to use the code in any manner. Then over the last few years, there’s been a slew of other individuals who have registered and have been granted copyrights to the Bitcoin software and it’s associated paper.
The Hawaiian Who Registered the White Paper Before Wright
There’s Ronald Keala Kua Maria, a resident from Hawaii who copyrighted the Bitcoin white paper, back in August 2016 with registration no. TXu 002037698. News.Bitcoin.com reported on Kua Maria claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto back in June 2018. Not only did Kua Maria copyright the white paper, but he also copyrighted a decent number of other trademarks and words like “Bitcoin Cash.” Additionally, Kua Maria owned a bunch of Bitcoin-related domains such as thesatoshinakamoto.com, bitcoincopyrights.com, bitcoincashcopyright.com, bchcopyright.com, and others. When we first wrote about Kua Maria, most of his domains redirected to his home page rkm.world. One interesting thing to note about one of Kua Maria’s domains (http://www.bitcoincopyrights.com) is that it now redirects to a BSV website now.
U.S. Copyright Office Responds to ‘Certain Bitcoin Registrations’
After all the commentary and jokes on social media channels, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a statement concerning the matter. In the press release called “Questions about Certain Bitcoin Registrations,” the agency detailed that it “does not investigate the truth of any statement made.” The Copyright Office continued by adding:
A registration represents a claim to an interest in a work protected by copyright law, not a determination of the truth of the claims therein. It is possible for multiple, adverse claims to be registered at the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office does not have an opposition procedure for copyright registrations, such as the procedures available at the Patent and Trademark Office for patents and trademark registrations.
Essentially after addressing that multiple registrants have copyrighted certain technologies, the agency said that it’s really up to the “federal courts, including disputes over authorship of a work.” Moreover, when it comes to works created by a pseudonym with a moniker like Satoshi Nakamoto, the Copyright Office “does not investigate whether there is a provable connection between the claimant and the pseudonymous author.” The U.S. Copyright Office also details that correspondence between Wright and the agency is part of the public registration record.
Furthermore, the well known libertarian writer and patent attorney, Stephan Kinsella, told his social media followers that the copyright proves nothing. “As I’ve pointed out for days now on Twitter threads, such assertions are ridiculous and misrepresent the way copyright works — Because most people don’t understand how copyright works, when they hear that the Copyright Office “registers” or “approves the registration” of a works this somehow means the government has issued a copyright to the applicant and verified their authorship etc,” Kinsella opined. The patent attorney and intellectual property expert further detailed:
None of this is true. Copyright registration is a simple procedure that does not prove copyright or authorship and does not prove anything at all, especially when done more than 5 years after the original work was published.
The crypto community was once again not only disheartened by Wright’s attempt to copyright open source software, but most have also been dumbfounded by the extraordinary hoops he’s gone through to prove he is Satoshi. From the BBC interviews to the cover of GQ, Wright has gone to great lengths to prove he is the inventor of Bitcoin. The process could be much easier for him or for anyone to prove the existence of Satoshi by simply signing a message tied to the genesis block or moving some coins. Every single attempt Wright has made to prove he is Satoshi so far has been refuted and mocked by the greater crypto community. The copyright undertaking that costs $ 55 per registration for the white paper and some of the open source code is no different.
What do you think about Wright’s latest copyright proof attempt? Let us know what you think about this story in the comments section below.
Image credits: Shutterstock, Twitter, Github, rkm.world, and the U.S. Copyright Office online database.
Verify and track bitcoin cash transactions on our BCH Block Explorer, the best of its kind anywhere in the world. Also, keep up with your holdings, BCH, and other coins, on our market charts at Markets.Bitcoin.com, another original and free service from Bitcoin.com.
The post US Copyright Office Responds to Craig Wright’s Bitcoin Registrations appeared first on Bitcoin News.
The ongoing lawsuit between the relatives of Dave Kleiman and Craig Wright continues to unfold as a filing has been unsealed that shows a list of addresses tied to the first 70 bitcoin blocks Wright claims to have mined. However, not long after the redacted list was unsealed, researchers at Wizsec Security studied the addresses and are convinced his list is merely a “lazy copy-paste from the blockchain, without any cryptographic signatures to support his claims of ownership.”
Bitcoin Security Specialists Wizsec Discuss the Recently Unsealed Bitcoin Address List From the Kleiman v. Wright Lawsuit
The self-proclaimed Satoshi, Craig Wright, is being sued by the Kleiman family on behalf of the now deceased Dave Kleiman and his estate. The lawsuit accuses Wright of fraud and theft of “over $ 11 billion worth of bitcoins and intellectual property from the estate of Dave Kleiman and W&K shortly after Dave’s 2013 death.” Last week the court ordered Wright to disclose bitcoin addresses that belonged to him before December 2013. The Florida Magistrate overseeing the lawsuit, Judge Bruce Reinhart, signed the order and gave Wright a few days to produce the list.
Since then a list of addresses that were once filed in an obscure fashion was unsealed and Wright claims to have mined the first 70 bitcoin blocks starting from the Genesis block. After the redacted list was unsealed, the researchers at Wizsec decided to study the addresses and wrote a blog post about the recently disclosed file. Wizsec claims that Wright simply copied and pasted the addresses from the first 70 blocks and asserted the addresses belonged to him without any cryptographic proof.
In Wright’s latest unsealed motion in regard to the list of public addresses his legal council writes:
Dr. Wright knows that he mined the first 70 blocks on the blockchain. Because the public addresses associated with blocks are publicly available, Dr. Wright is able to identify the public addresses associated with the first 70 blocks on the blockchain and provides those public addresses below.
Memorizing Alphanumeric Identifiers
Wizsec says the motion begs the belief that the self-proclaimed inventor acts as if he is “ignorant about the fundamentals of his invention.” “Perhaps Wright thinks that being a bitcoin miner means pointing at bitcoins and yelling ‘Mine,’” the researchers jokingly remarked. In the document, Wright’s filing continues to assert that he did not keep track of which Bitcoin blocks he mined and that he does not know any of the other Bitcoin public addresses. The motion further states that the self-styled Satoshi does not have a complete list of the public addresses that he owned as of any date.
“To create such a list would be unduly burdensome,” Wright’s attorneys insisted. “A bitcoin public address is an identifier of 26-35 alphanumeric characters. Such addresses are not intended to be memorized and remembered for a period of nearly a decade.”
Blockchain Developer Says Wright’s Address List Includes Block 64 — A Block That Was Not Mined Using the Same Software as Satoshi
Wizsec researchers note that it is absurd for the motion filing to suggest that the way people store and manage bitcoin keys is to memorize them and remember them. “That’s what wallets are for, precisely so you never forget or lose your keys,” Wizsec concluded. In addition to Wizsec’s report, Bitcoin Cash developer Mark Lundeberg detailed that Wright’s filing of addresses includes block 64, a block that was definitely not mined using the same software as Satoshi’s blocks according to Sergio Lerner’s Patoshi analysis. “Why?” Lundeberg asks. “Presumably he just grabbed the list of first unspent blocks (except block 9) — The list cut off crudely at 70 since block 78 was spent — But block 64 is special too, oopsie.” The BCH developer continued the discussion in response to a post about the Wizsec research on Reddit and further stated:
It’s interesting to note here that Craig’s list includes the block 64 address which falls well outside of the Patoshi extranonce pattern. (Patoshi would have had extranonce 160; the coinbase has extranonce 6 instead) Also of note is that Craig only lists 70 addresses — likely he wanted to avoid listing 80 or more addresses as that would have included block 78 which is the first spent coinbase besides satoshi’s block 9, i.e., it would have opened the possibility for someone to contest.
Wright’s attorney states that its client transferred ownership of all his bitcoins into a blind trust back in 2011. Moreover, they insist that Wright is not a trustee nor a beneficiary of the blind trust and he doesn’t know the public addresses associated with the trust. “Thus Dr. Wright does not know and cannot provide any other public addresses,” the filing states. Over the last few years, Wright has provided similar types of evidence to try and convince the greater crypto community he is Satoshi. So far he hasn’t provided the community with any cryptographic proof that can actually tie him to the Satoshi monicker. So the recent unsealed list of once redacted addresses is no different than Wright’s prior and unsubstantiated claims. Blockchain engineers and security researchers like Wizsec believe listing the first 70 publicly known blocks is completely meaningless without providing true cryptographic evidence of ownership.
What do you think about the latest submission stemming from the Kleiman v. Wright docket? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below.
Image credits: Shutterstock, and Pixabay.
Did you know Bitcoin.com will soon be launching a peer-to-peer trading platform called Local Bitcoin Cash? The service will allow for direct exchange with people trading BCH all around the world. At Bitcoin.com we’re excited and it’s coming soon! If you want to stay notified for when the hottest new trading platform launches – Sign up here today!
The post Blockchain Researchers Mock Craig Wright’s Unsealed Bitcoin Address List appeared first on Bitcoin News.
On Dec. 27, court documents from the case against the Nchain chief scientist, Craig Wright, explained a large portion of his recent dismissal motions were found “not warranted” and were denied. Wright is being sued for 1.1 million BTC in a legal case in Florida that alleges he manipulated David Kleiman’s family.
The Lawsuit Against Craig Wright for 1.1 Million BTC Moves Forward
According to case 18-CV-80176 Kleiman v. Wright filed in South Florida, Craig Wright is accused of allegedly interfering with David Kleiman’s bitcoin assets after he died. Kleiman’s family believes David and Wright played a role in the early days of Bitcoin and possibly created the technology. This assumption was bolstered back when Kleiman, a forensic computer investigator was featured with Wright in tech publications such as Wired and Gizmodo, because they too thought the duo were possible Satoshi suspects.
Kleiman died in 2013 with very little money after fighting with MRSA, a bacterium infection that spreads in different parts of the body. His brother Ira Kleiman alleges Wright of plotting to “seize Dave’s bitcoins and his rights to certain intellectual property,” according to the legal documents filed last February. Kleiman’s estate is suing Wright for approximately 1.1 million BTC ($ 3.9 billion) or the coin’s fair market value and damages associated with IP theft.
Wright Accused of Grifting the Kleiman Family and Transferring David’s Bitcoins to Various International Trusts
Nchain’s Craig Wright and his legal representation, Rivero Mestre LLP, attempted to dismiss the case earlier this year. Wright’s motion emphasized that Kleiman’s lawsuit was full of “supposition, speculation, conflicting allegations, hearsay, and innuendo.” The decision published on Dec. 27 explains the Florida district Judge Beth Bloom has granted Wright’s motion to dismiss counts III, and IV. However, Wright must answer to counts I, II, V-IX of the amended complaint and he has until Jan. 10, 2019, to respond. For instance the 40-page court document states:
[The] court finds that plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a claim for conversion — The Amended Complaint alleges that defendant converted at least 300,000 bitcoins upon Dave’s death and transferred them to various international trusts, was an unauthorized act that deprived the plaintiffs of the bitcoins therein — Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claim for conversion (Count I) survives defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The Kleiman complaints further allege that Wright took advantage of a family who didn’t know too much about the technology. According to the lawsuit, the Kleiman family was unaware of certain property and IP assets that existed. Allegedly, Wright reached out to Dave’s elderly father 10-months after he passed and said, “he was not seek[ing] anything other than to give [him] information about [his] son, and offering to help the Kleiman family recover what Dave owned.”
The Amended Complaint also says that Wright promised shares to David’s family for a company called “Coin-Exch” and detailed the shares were “worth millions.” Wright is also accused of “several fraudulent omissions and misrepresentations” to the Kleiman family and related to the property and assets David may have owned. Judge Bloom explains that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has not decided on whether or not bitcoins are considered “money.” But Bloom emphasized the court still takes alleged victims and injury that occurs on home soil very seriously.
“This controversy concerns a Florida company, regarding Florida assets (bitcoins mined in Florida) and intellectual property developed by a Florida company, where both the injured parties are Florida citizens,” Bloom’s decision states. “Therefore, the Southern District of Florida undeniably has a strong interest in adjudicating a case in which its residents claim that harm was committed against them.”
The court documents assert that with counts I, II, V-IX still standing, Wright has not met his “heavy burden” against the opposing Kleiman estate and “dismissal on forum non-conveniens grounds is therefore not warranted.”
What do you think about the case against Craig Wright? Let us know what you think about this legal matter concerning 1.1 million BTC in the comments section below.
Images via Shutterstock, Pixabay, Google, Wiki, Pacer, and Florida case 18-CV-80176.
Need to calculate your bitcoin holdings? Check our tools section.
The post Judge Denies Craig Wright’s Motion to Dismiss Billion-Dollar Bitcoin Lawsuit appeared first on Bitcoin News.
Isaiah Wright — the talented running back featured on the Netflix docuseries “Last Chance U” — is being released from jail after cutting a plea deal in his murder case … TMZ Sports has learned. Wright was arrested back in Sept. 2017 on 1…
Toya Wright says she’s relieved that cops finally have a suspect in custody for the shooting deaths of her 2 brothers. Toya tells TMZ … “All we want is justice for my brothers .. We thank everyone for their prayers and support.” Antoine…
Robin Wright’s public call out of gender wage inequity should be a wakeup call to business leaders everywhere.
Forbes.com: Most popular stories