Australian Who Says He Invented Bitcoin Ordered To Hand Over Up To $5B (theguardian.com) 27
The Australian man who claimed to have invented cryptocurrency bitcoin has been ordered to hand over half of his alleged bitcoin holdings, reported to be worth up to $5 billion. From a report: The IT security consultant Craig Wright, 49, was sued by the estate of David Kleiman, a programmer who died in 2013, for a share of Wright's bitcoin haul over the pair's involvement in the inception of the cryptocurrency from 2009 to 2013. Kleiman's estate alleges Wright and Kleiman were partners, and therefore his family is entitled to a share of the bitcoin that was mined by the pair in that time. Wright denies there was a partnership. A US district court in Florida on Tuesday ruled that half of the bitcoin mined and half of the intellectual property held by Wright from that time belongs to Kleiman.
One issue is it is not known exactly how much bitcoin Wright holds. It has been claimed that the Kleiman estate could get anywhere between 410,000 and 500,000 bitcoin, putting the value at between $4.1 billion and $4.99 billion as of Wednesday. Wright claimed to the court that he couldn't access the bitcoin because he doesn't have a list of the public addresses of that bitcoin. He claimed in 2011, after seeing the cryptocurrency had begun to be associated with drug dealers and human traffickers, he put the bitcoin he mined in 2009 and 2010 into an encrypted file and into a blind trust. The encrypted key was divided into multiple key slices, and the key slices were given to Kleiman who distributed them to people through the trust.
One issue is it is not known exactly how much bitcoin Wright holds. It has been claimed that the Kleiman estate could get anywhere between 410,000 and 500,000 bitcoin, putting the value at between $4.1 billion and $4.99 billion as of Wednesday. Wright claimed to the court that he couldn't access the bitcoin because he doesn't have a list of the public addresses of that bitcoin. He claimed in 2011, after seeing the cryptocurrency had begun to be associated with drug dealers and human traffickers, he put the bitcoin he mined in 2009 and 2010 into an encrypted file and into a blind trust. The encrypted key was divided into multiple key slices, and the key slices were given to Kleiman who distributed them to people through the trust.
You see what happened was . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
He really is Sakimoto but he can’t prove it. And he’d really like to pay the amount but he doesn’t have his wallet right now. He left the details of it with the guy who is dead. But he’s going to get it back in 2020. Also if you invest some money with him, he is friends with a Nigerian prince that will get an inheritance any day now. . .
Seriously reading his excuses does anyone buy his story?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have this serious "Christopher Lloyd getting a telegram delivered from past" picture in my mind now.
Re: (Score:2)
His day job is a security consultant? Set aside the fact that he couldn't keep a set of crypto keys worth billions secure, and instead take heart that his Nigerian mates know a thing or two about security and will give your entire operation a through vetting for any opportunities you might be offering hackers.
Re: (Score:2)
> Seriously reading his excuses does anyone buy his story?
Almost everybody thinks he's a liar, a fraud, and a grandiose narcissist.
Those who don't have formed a coin called BitcoinSV, which, by all apparent signs, operates as a cult and needs monitoring for signs of becoming a dangerous one.
How Convienient (Score:2)
he put the bitcoin he mined in 2009 and 2010 into an encrypted file and into a blind trust.
Or in other words- he's full of bull poopy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this situation, I believe proper grammar would dictate the use of 'were' rather than 'was'.
Re: (Score:3)
There's no conflict there. If I have a guy working for me, or a friend, associate, contractor, whatever. Then, if I allocate some shares/funds/assets to that guy, it doesn't suddenly mean I'm in some sort of equal partnership with him.
On the other hand, if he's a co-director of a company, or we are both working on a project where he is not directly employed by me, then it would stand to reason that he was some sort of partner.
Without any evidence of the original agreement, it is difficult to impossible to d
That backfired... (Score:3)
He may also be due a lot of property tax.
Re: (Score:2)
He may also be due a lot of property tax.
Surely not before he sells the property and makes a profit?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. In some countries you need to declare crypto-currencies as property.
Re: That backfired... (Score:2)
If you mine it or buy it, sure. If someone just gives you crypto currency or pays you for services, then receiving the crypto currency is a taxable event.
At least in the U.S.
Generally speaking, treat it like gold. If you buy gold or mine it, there are no taxes until you sell. If someone hands you gold bullion as a gift or in payment, you have to pay taxes on the receipt of the assets.
Adjudicate an unknown amount? (Score:2)
One issue is it is not known exactly how much bitcoin Wright holds.
This sounds unusual... Why would the plaintiffs court not compel Wright to disclose asset details at discovery early in the case, before adjudicating, And/or require not just disclosure, but sequestration of the assets into custodia legis of the court to prevent a defendant "disappearing with them" in case of unfavorable outcome, as well?
Re: (Score:2)
They did.
And Craig stalled, rambled, and otherwise did not comply. The little he did to appear to be complying consisted of badly forged documents that did not hold up to scrutiny.
Hence the upset magistrate calling him a liar, and recommending the federal court rule against him.
Re: (Score:1)
At this point he can't claim not to be Satoshi. The court has determined he is and owes the initial mining shares. He will eventually be put in jail for theft for the rest of his life like Tommy Thompson as he won't be able to recover the bitcoin... His bullshit has put him on the run, he needs to get some place without extradition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They did.
And Craig stalled, rambled, and otherwise did not comply. The little he did to appear to be complying consisted of badly forged documents that did not hold up to scrutiny.
Hence the upset magistrate calling him a liar, and recommending the federal court rule against him.
Can they not lock him up for contempt until he coughs up? Like they should have done way back during discovery phase when he lied to the court then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wright never had much to lose as perjury charges in a civil case are extremely rare.
One may argue that lack of penalty allowed him to behave in such an egregious manner.
THERE IS NO $5B JUDGEMENT! (Score:1)
This is hilarious (Score:1)
Guy invests the digital equivalent of beanie babies and is a billionaire. Good for him!
I know, I'm an idiot. Tell me that in 20 years.
Re: This is hilarious (Score:2)
Why should we wait that long when youâ(TM)re an idiot already today?
Re: (Score:2)
He's not claiming to have invested, he's claimed to have mined the first blocks as well as writing the initial specification and software. This claim is doubted by many experts for a few reasons like him not being willing (or perhaps not able) to sign a message with the keys that control those bitcoin.
Perhaps you should read the article.