Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Bitcoin

Self-Proclaimed Bitcoin Inventor's Claim 'a Brazen Lie,' London Court Told (reuters.com) 91

Posted by BeauHD from the debate-continues dept.
In a London court, lawyers for a group supported by the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) argued that Craig Wright's assertion of being the inventor of bitcoin is "a brazen lie," challenged by accusations of extensive document forgery to substantiate his claim. Wright's defense disputes these allegations, maintaining that he has presented definitive proof of his role in creating bitcoin. Reuters reports: Craig Wright says he is the author of a 2008 white paper, the foundational text of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, published in the name "Satoshi Nakamoto". He argues this means he owns the copyright in the white paper and has intellectual property rights over the bitcoin blockchain. But the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) -- whose members include Twitter founder Dorsey's payments firm Block -- is asking London's High Court to rule that Wright is not Satoshi.

The five-week hearing, at which Wright will give evidence from Tuesday, is the culmination of years of speculation about the true identity of Satoshi. Wright first publicly claimed to be Satoshi in 2016 and has since taken legal action against cryptocurrency developers and exchanges. COPA, however, says Wright has never provided any genuine proof, accusing him of repeatedly forging documents to support his claim, which Wright denies. Wright sat in court as COPA's lawyer Jonathan Hough said his claim was "a brazen lie, an elaborate false narrative supported by forgery on an industrial scale." Hough said that "there are elements of Dr Wright's conduct that stray into farce," citing his alleged use of ChatGPT to produce forgeries.

But he added: "Dr Wright's conduct is also deadly serious. On the basis of his dishonest claim to be Satoshi, he has pursued claims he puts at hundreds of billions of dollars, including against numerous private individuals." Wright's lawyer Anthony Grabiner, however, argued in court filings that he has produced "clear evidence demonstrating his authorship of the white paper and creation of bitcoin." Grabiner added that it was "striking" that no one else had publicly claimed to be Satoshi. "If Dr Wright were not Satoshi, the real Satoshi would have been expected to come forward to counter the claim," he said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Self-Proclaimed Bitcoin Inventor's Claim 'a Brazen Lie,' London Court Told More

Self-Proclaimed Bitcoin Inventor's Claim 'a Brazen Lie,' London Court Told

Comments Filter:

  • Why come forward? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tyr07 ( 8900565 ) on Monday February 05, 2024 @08:57PM (#64217890)

    I mean that could be the intention. If someone was really wanting to avoid being involved with this and never came forward, this could be an attempt to bait them out for some reason. Probably because the original designer had a ton of bitcoin and probably became incredibly rich, and people want to rip that nest apart. Taxes, fraud charges, court, whatever they can do to try and get some monies.

    If he isn't who he is claiming to be, trust me, the person who is absolutely wants nothing to do with this and to stay off the radar.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. And also because the BitCoin design sucks ass. I would not want to be associated with it, rich or not.

      • Hence "Bitcon" (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        because the BitCoin design sucks ass. .

        Hence the more appropriate term for it: Bitcon

      • It only spurred a revolution in distributed computing. Yeah totally bad /s

        • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Ummm, yeah no, distributed computing has been a thing since the 1970s. What Bitcoin and all cryptocurrencies has innovated is the redistribution of wealth: ripping off "investors" to line the pockets of a few crims whenever another exchange folds.
          • That's nice but I didn't say there wasn't distributed computing prior I said it spurred a revolution in distributed computing. Much has been overhyped for sure but the blockchain is a revolution in distributed computing.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by fullgandoo ( 1188759 )

              Blockchain is essentially a distributed ledger. How has it revolutionized distributed computing?

              Secondly, it is a solution still looking for a problem. I haven't seen any application of blockchain that has solved a problem that couldn't be solved orders of magnitude more efficiently using traditional solutions.

              Sure, in a Bizzaro world where no one trusts anyone, it is useful. Such as crypto currencies. Other than that, blockchain has been out for 15+ years and has yet to show its utility.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by gravewax ( 4772409 )
          huh? what revolution? distributed computing has been around for decades, long before bitcoin was a glint in Satoshi's eye. I have not seen any significant changes to distributed computing due to Bitcoin or blockchain, if anything it has impeded its progress by diverting funds to moronic blockchain projects.

          • Re:Why come forward? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Monday February 05, 2024 @10:54PM (#64218114) Homepage Journal

            > I have not seen any significant changes to distributed computing due to Bitcoin or blockchain

            Tell us how you solved Distributed Consensus and the Byzantine General's problem.

            You've at least read the whitepaper in the past 15 years, right?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by gweihir ( 88907 )

              These are old and solved for known user-groups. For "everybody can participate", they are meaningless and unimportant as the only known application is crapto.

              • So you admit it was unsolved everything else you wrote is what's actually meaningless here.

                • Re:Why come forward? (Score:5, Interesting)

                  by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Tuesday February 06, 2024 @12:25AM (#64218278)

                  Solving a problem is not a revolution.

                  I disagree with the OP, the bitcoin whitepaper is a good bit of technical CS research and I wouldn't be ashamed to have my name associated with it. I also disagree with you that it's "spurred a revolution." It provided a solution to an outstanding problem that at least so far doesn't seem to have many applications and is also breathtakingly inefficient.

                  • It's fair to argue the revolution was overhyped and didn't live up to what was promised but to deny the revolution is silly. Just bitcoin alone in the financial sector is enough to cement the revolution. The world before and after for better or worse is different with massive resources having been poured into the development and usage of blockchains.

                    • Re: (Score:3)

                      by gweihir ( 88907 )

                      Naa. It is just a bunch of greedy assholes trying to get rich quick on crapto using the Greater Fool Theory. No revolution anywhere in sight. As soon as the fools run out (which may still take a while), nothing will be left besides some footnotes.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

                      Lots of people certainly claimed there would be a revolution. It hasn't happened, and doesn't look likely to.

                      Failed revolution, maybe.

                    • It having helped facilitate crime doesn't make it not a revolution.
                    • You can focus on that it doesn't mean it's not a revolution though.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by gweihir ( 88907 )

                      Getting rich on "Greater Fool Theory" is not actually a crime. It is just despicable and contributes absolutely nothing to society, but takes from it and destabilizes things like all unregulated gambling.

                      You are correct that a major other business aspect of crapto is facilitating crime like extortion and tax evasion by being a means for money-laundering. You are also correct that does not have any impact on its scientific or engineering merits. It is in the process of being shut down though, by recognizing

                  • revÂoÂluÂtion - a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favor of a new system.

                    almost 1% of the world's population hold bitcoin.

                    new system in place. check.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                    Not so, crypto currency has enabled massive amounts of fraud and scams. Are you saying that badly drawn computer iterated JPEGs are not a valuable application?!

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by gweihir ( 88907 )

                  Hahahaha, no. I say there was no benefit to solving it. Solving questions in a way that has no benefit is simply meaningless. Oh, and obviously if there was any real serious application besides crapto, these algorithms would have been explored in detail as they were not hard to come up with. They were not because nobody saw any reason to waste their time on it.

                  I also notice you are trying wayyyy too hard and probably understand deep down that you are wrong on this.

            • yes I have read it and have even worked on a blockchain project. No blockchain did not bring a revolution or anything that didn't already have other better solutions. blockchain is an incredibly inefficient solution for most systems (including the transactional system I worked on, which thankfully the organisation woke the fuck up after 2 years of development and dumped it).
          • Just a little thing called the blockchain SMH

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          It did not. Not even remotely.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          It only spurred a revolution in distributed computing. Yeah totally bad /s

          SETI@Home has entered the chat.

        • It is not distributed computing. That is where multiple sources work on completing a different part of the puzzle. Bitcoin, everyone is working on guessing 1 solution and all wrong guesses are wasted and thrown out. It is more of competitive computing. SETI@Home was revolutionary for distributed computing. I remember normies 20+ years ago having it installed to help the cause.

          • Yes... that was back in the days of screensavers and before the advent of power management for CPU and Monitors...

          • Hmm, yes, the bitcoin mining is not revolutionary at all. I suspect the "revolution" means that it has generated lots of interest, good or bad, and the financial sector has set up and noticed and it taking the bait. It certainly spawned lots of interest in cryptocurrencies which indeed took off with better methods and ideas, so that's somewhat revolutionary, in a niche kind of way.

            But for distributed computing it didn't do much. Computer science isn't about solving complex problems by throwing vast amoun

            • Computer science does indeed entail solving complex problems by throwing vas amounts of resources at it especially distributed computing. SETI or Folding at home ringing any bells for you? Are super computers not massive resources to solve complex problems?

        • ...it spurred a revolution in distributed computing.

          ...that resulted in a colossal waste of energy.

        • Again, there was a revolution and I missed it! Someone send out memos so I don't miss the next one.

    • Satoshi might prefer not being beaten to a pulp. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by nuckfuts ( 690967 ) on Tuesday February 06, 2024 @03:05AM (#64218444)
      Maybe if I am the owner of billions in cryptocurrency, which anyone could walk away with anonymously if they tortured me until I gave up the key, I might not want to advertise I am in possession of said key.

  • 8 years ago, Dan Kaminsky (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Midnight_Falcon ( 2432802 ) on Monday February 05, 2024 @08:58PM (#64217892)
    Published this blog post [dankaminsky.com]. For anyone reasonable, the information here would have been the end of him. Heck, Wright was caught using a slight-of-hand involving a staged laptop with altered bitcoin validation code [wizsec.jp] with Gavin Andresen to temporarily fool him into thinking he had Satoshi's keys. But, Wright appears to be continuing to use non-technical lawyers to stretch disbelief and argue that despite the fact he's been proven again and again a con man, he must be Saotshi.

    A more plausible retort to his lawyer's claims of why doesn't Satoshi come forward would be, well, maybe Satoshi is dead and has been for a few years.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      I was just thinking, all anyone would need to do to prove they're Satoshi is to trade one of his coins.

      Not that I've done a lot of research on this, but this is still the most likely candidate that I've heard of.

      https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]

      Satoshi Nakamoto is ... Satoshi Nakamoto — a 64-year-old Japanese-American former defense contractor . . . responding when asked about bitcoin, 'I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it, ... It's been turned over to other people. They are in char

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I was just thinking, all anyone would need to do to prove they're Satoshi is to trade one of his coins.
        Not that I've done a lot of research on this, but this is still the most likely candidate that I've heard of

        Sorry but no.
        Satoshi Nakamoto is 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa
        All anyone would need to do to prove they're Satoshi is to use the private key to that wallet to digitally sign anything and provide that anything + hash.
        The entire world has the public key needed to verify that signature.

        A coin transfer is but one of many ways to accomplish this.
        A forum post or email are some others.

        Craig Wright is not in possession of this key.
        Craig Wright has pasted random characters in a message along with the public ke

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by keltor ( 99721 ) *
        The leading theories boiled down to either literally this guy or another older Japanese guy (who died relatively soon after Satoshi went dark). Both have the math chops to have done it (something Craig Wright does not have). There are plenty of possible reasons not to come forward: lost the key (shit happens), dementia, death, don't care, became a technophile, or something else. I'd put my money on death and dementia being the most likely explanations if they were not one of the two previous suspects.
      • Not really. All Wright has to do is sign a message using Satoshi's private key. We know Satoshi signed many messages back in the day so he used them. However, Wright has been caught lying about owning specific coins in court cases. In one case the real owner signed a message stating that Wright was liar, and in another one owner identifying himself to the court under the condition his identity not be disclosed to the public. Wright subsequently disclosed enough details about the owner for him to be identifi

    • Re:8 years ago, Dan Kaminsky (Score:5, Interesting)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday February 06, 2024 @08:15AM (#64218900)

      A more plausible retort to his lawyer's claims of why doesn't Satoshi come forward would be, well, maybe Satoshi is dead and has been for a few years.

      There are many plausible reasons. Just off the top of my head:
      1. Not everyone wants to be instantly famous the world over, maybe Satoshi is an introvert.
      2. Maybe they don't want to be associated with an experiment that seems to have deviated wildly from its initial goal.
      3. Being a multi-billionaire they may not want the huge target on their backs, people have already been kidnapped and tortured for oders of magnitude less in the crypto world.
      4. Maybe they feel shame knowing that at a time where the world is fucking itself over with emissions they created something that wastes more energy than entire countries.
      5. Maybe they are just sitting and waiting for the court to say Craig Wright is Satoshi, only for them to come out and make a transaction at the end proving he's not for the LOLs.

  • I am... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ZipK ( 1051658 ) on Monday February 05, 2024 @08:59PM (#64217894)
    I am Satoshi. Or Spartacus. Or someone.

  • Scammer, liar,... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Monday February 05, 2024 @09:25PM (#64217920)

    You know, a typical crypto-bro, no surprise there.

  • Japanese names have the surname first (Score:5, Funny)

    by Misagon ( 1135 ) on Monday February 05, 2024 @09:27PM (#64217924)

    The supposed inventor of Bitcoin is in the west called Satoshi Nakamoto, with the surname last.
    In Japan, however, the surname is first. Nakamoto SAtoshi.

    You can guess who I think the inventor is. :P

  • "If Dr Wright were not Satoshi, the real Satoshi would have been expected to come forward to counter the claim,"

    because he is now an insanely wealthy billionaire that has absolutely no need for the fame or potential issues that come with admitting he owns billions (after all he used a pseudonym to begin with so he was not interested in his real name against it)

    • I'd bet he's now dead. That makes the most sense as to why no one has stepped forward or the funds haven't moved.

    • Grabiner added that it was "striking" that no one else had publicly claimed to be Satoshi. "If Dr Wright were not Satoshi, the real Satoshi would have been expected to come forward to counter the claim," he said.

      "I'm Spartacus!"

      (No-one else comes forward).

      By Grabiner's logic I am now Spartacus: If I were not Spartacus, the real Spartacus would have been expected to come forward to counter the claim

      This guy really should join Trump's legal team, he seems eminently qualified.

      • Grabiner added that it was "striking" that no one else had publicly claimed to be Satoshi. "If Dr Wright were not Satoshi, the real Satoshi would have been expected to come forward to counter the claim," he said.

        "I'm Spartacus!"

        (No-one else comes forward).

        By Grabiner's logic I am now Spartacus: If I were not Spartacus, the real Spartacus would have been expected to come forward to counter the claim

        I suggest we refer to this particular logical fallacy as "Grabiner's Hammer", e.g. "by Grabiner's Hammer, I'm the inventor of bitcoin."

  • Hal Finney was Satroshi (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Tuesday February 06, 2024 @01:14AM (#64218342) Homepage

    It has been an open secret in the cryptography community that Hal Finney was the designer of BitCoin from the very start. Hal died in 2014. Or at least he was frozen in liquid nitrogen so not talking either way.

    Besides being the first person to be involved in BTC who didn't hide behind a pseudonym, Hal published a paper that describes essentially the whole BitCoin scheme two years before BTC was launched. And Hal never once accused Satoshi of stealing his work.

    The reason Hal had to hide behind Satoshi is simple: The Harber Stornetta patent didn't expire until about 9 months after BTC launched. That covers the notion of the hash chain. There is absolutely no way anyone working in the field did not know about that patent or its imminent expiry. Hal certainly did because I discussed it with him before BTC was launched.

    So the big question is why BTC was launched when it was, why not wait 9 months to have free and clear title? Well, Hal got his terminal ALS diagnosis a few weeks prior: He was a man in a hurry.

    Having launched prematurely, Hal had to wait six years after the original expiry of the patent term to avoid a lawsuit over the rights to BTC from Surety. He died before that happened.

    Oh and I have absolutely no doubt Hal mined the genesis blocks straight into the bit bucket. The key fingerprint is probably the hash of some English language phrase.

  • Donkey Kong (Score:4, Funny)

    by nuckfuts ( 690967 ) on Tuesday February 06, 2024 @03:06AM (#64218446)
    He should get that Donkey Kong guy to testify as a character witness.

  • Safe to assume... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bickerdyke ( 670000 ) on Tuesday February 06, 2024 @05:52AM (#64218760)

    It's safe to assume that that guy is NOT Satoshi.

    It is also safe to assume that the real author of that paper made a conscious decision to prevent anyone including himself to come out as that author.

    I mean, you are writing a paper that is about a currency based on cryptographically signing transactions to guarantee authenticity... wouldn't you think of cryptographically signing that paper itself?

    So anyone who claims to be Satoshi can't be Satoshi!

    (or would have to explain how someone clever enough to invent bitcoin is stupid enough to not digitally sign his paper)

  • Satoshi Nakamoto (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mrthoughtful ( 466814 ) on Tuesday February 06, 2024 @07:21AM (#64218852) Journal
    Satoshi Nakamoto was a pseudonym for a reason. The author did not want to claim copyright for the paper. The author did not want to be identified. The author was content that the idea be put out there without anybody being able to point the finger. Why? Motive is complex - but possibly because the author worked in the crypto industry, and it would break some contractual clause they were signatory to. Alternatively, they didn't want it to be about personality as much as just a ripping good idea. I am pretty sure that the author was not looking for fame nor wealth.
  • The guy has been claiming to be Satoshi for years now, but when pressed to prove that he is (and he could easily prove it if he were Satoshi) he systematically refuses to do so. Until he does, he's nothing but a scammer and a con-man.
    • There are also the multiple court cases in different countries where courts have determined Wright to be less than credible. In this case, Wright suddenly "found" 97 documents in December that prove he authored the original paper. COPA's experts have already found issues with some of those documents.

Slashdot Top Deals

Life is a healthy respect for mother nature laced with greed.

Close