Self-Described Bitcoin Creator Must Pay $100 Million In Suit (bloomberg.com) 84
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: The Australian computer scientist who claims he invented Bitcoin was told by a U.S. jury to pay $100 million in damages over claims that he cheated a deceased friend over intellectual property for the cryptocurrency. Jurors in Miami federal court took about a week to reach Monday's verdict, following about three weeks of trial. The jury rejected most claims against Craig Wright and the outcome probably won't resolve the debate over whether Wright is the mythical creator of the peer-to-peer currency, Satoshi Nakamoto.
The brother of Dave Kleiman, a computer security expert who died in 2013, alleged that the late Florida man worked with Wright to create and mine Bitcoin in its early years. As a result, the plaintiffs claimed the estate was entitled to half of a cache of as many as 1.1 million Bitcoins worth some $70 billion, which are thought to be held by Satoshi. Some cryptocurrency investors see Wright as a fake, and years-long litigation in Florida has done little to quiet the skeptics. Wright has declared many times in court that he invented Bitcoin, as he has previously in news interviews. Had the jury's verdict gone against Wright, that would have forced to him to produce the Satoshi fortune. To some observers, that would have been the true test.
"Many years ago, Craig Wright told the Kleiman family that he and Dave Kleiman developed revolutionary Bitcoin based intellectual property," he said in a statement. "Despite those admissions, Wright refused to give the Kleimans their fair share of what Dave helped create." The jury found Wright liable for conversion -- the illegal taking of property -- and awarded damages to W&K Info Defense Research LLC, the entity through which Kleiman and Wright are supposed to have done work together. In closing arguments to the jury, Freedman said Wright schemed and connived to "steal from his dead best friend with forgery and lies." The estate claimed that in addition to the Bitcoin mining the friends did together, Kleiman helped Wright create the intellectual property behind early blockchain technology worth $252 billion. Wright contended that the claims by Dave Kleiman's brother, Ira, were fabricated. He testified that his friend didn't help him launch the cryptocurrency and argued there was no paper trail showing that they had a partnership.
The brother of Dave Kleiman, a computer security expert who died in 2013, alleged that the late Florida man worked with Wright to create and mine Bitcoin in its early years. As a result, the plaintiffs claimed the estate was entitled to half of a cache of as many as 1.1 million Bitcoins worth some $70 billion, which are thought to be held by Satoshi. Some cryptocurrency investors see Wright as a fake, and years-long litigation in Florida has done little to quiet the skeptics. Wright has declared many times in court that he invented Bitcoin, as he has previously in news interviews. Had the jury's verdict gone against Wright, that would have forced to him to produce the Satoshi fortune. To some observers, that would have been the true test.
"Many years ago, Craig Wright told the Kleiman family that he and Dave Kleiman developed revolutionary Bitcoin based intellectual property," he said in a statement. "Despite those admissions, Wright refused to give the Kleimans their fair share of what Dave helped create." The jury found Wright liable for conversion -- the illegal taking of property -- and awarded damages to W&K Info Defense Research LLC, the entity through which Kleiman and Wright are supposed to have done work together. In closing arguments to the jury, Freedman said Wright schemed and connived to "steal from his dead best friend with forgery and lies." The estate claimed that in addition to the Bitcoin mining the friends did together, Kleiman helped Wright create the intellectual property behind early blockchain technology worth $252 billion. Wright contended that the claims by Dave Kleiman's brother, Ira, were fabricated. He testified that his friend didn't help him launch the cryptocurrency and argued there was no paper trail showing that they had a partnership.
Ouch (Score:3)
Stealing credit doesn't usually cost 100M, but I can see this method being abused in the future against self-congratulatory blowhards like Wright.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Some cryptocurrency investors see Wright as a fake
Only some? Is there anyone out there who actually believes this conman is Satoshi?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's absolutely clear that he's not Satoshi. He got caught red-handed attempting to fake evidence, and hasn't provided actual evidence.
However, it's true that if that doesn't "resolve the debate", nothing that happens in court will "resolve the debate" either
People who certainly know better (e.g. Wired's Andy Greenberg) have deliberately given air to the convicted fraudster's claim. I think it's because they wish to divert attention from the real author to "protect his privacy". I don't think it's OK to lie
Re: (Score:3)
Surely it should be no problem for him to send a small portion of his vast bitcoin fortune to cover this. They guy claims he is with 70 billion dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
It appears the two mined bitcoin together in the early days, and Craig Wright kept it all when his partner died. Now his family wants part of it. That is the part that decided by the jury.
If true, then Craig Wright is quite rich, despite not actually being Satoshi. Also, he must be a compulsive liar with psychological problems, since he doesn't need the money he gets from lying about it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I followed the case and saw absolutely no evidence that he created bitcoin. However, that was not what the jury decided on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People can claim what they like and the oath doesn't magically mean they were telling the truth. A claim of being shown something is just a claim and nothing more. It creates a reason to think there may be concrete evidence, but this deeper evidence never gets shown. It gets promised, repeatedly, but mysteriously never appears, which means there's also a reason to think there may be no evidence at all.
If the jury decided that he WASN'T the creator, then there could be no partnership, so you can't even consi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Convincing people you have a lot of money is step #1 in about a billion different scams. And Craig Wright is a convicted fraudster.
put up or shut up (Score:1)
"then you can easily afford to pay 100 million $ in damages to the estate of your former partner".
lol (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how that works (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't it funny that if you do anything of consequence in this world, you somehow end up in an American courtroom?
Re:Funny how that works (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't it funny that if you do anything of consequence in this world, you somehow end up in an American courtroom?
And even if you don't do anything of consequence, sometimes you end up in a courtroom. Just like Craig Wright, for example.
Re: (Score:3)
If he actually had Satoshi's fortunes, he could pay this in a heartbeat and move along with billions to spare.
Makes no sense to spend all this time, pay all those legal fees, & battle in court if his wild claims are true,
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure he would get his bitcoin stolen under the guise of AML every time he deposited it to an exchange or sent it to an OTC desk. After all he can't provide the kind of documentation that would satisfy AML requirements without a receipt showing he purchased it and pay slips proving where the money that purchased it came from.
Not that I believe Craig is Satoshi for a second.
Re: (Score:3)
OK, wow... where to start...
-Exchanges don't do AML on crypto deposits. US Currency, maybe. Crypto? Never.
-You never provide documentation on crypto deposits. If you have the keys to move it, it's yours. The encryption key IS the proof of ownership.
-Receipt? Satoshi mined them. There was never a purchase. These are brand new, unmoved coins.
-Even if they were purchased, nobody ever cares where the funds came from after the purchase is over and done with.
Crypo is a technology marvel designed to separate gov
Re: (Score:2)
Can they actually enforce the ruling though? I don't think he lives in the US and I don't know if he has assets there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, sadly the UK is the State's bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
Your knowledge of the enforcement of UK judgements is shite just like your patter. There is no reciprocity agreement.
They would need to file an action in a UK court for payment of a debt only and there are major hurdles that have to be satisfied.
It is by no-one means likely to be supported in court and typical US silly-money damages awards [damages awards in the UK are not made by a jury] are not viewed favourably by UK courts.
If Wright was smart enough not to involved himself in the proceedings [which he u
Re: (Score:3)
Literally no law matters when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake, or when the government casts its eye on you, or both.
Just ask Julian Assange about the integrity of the UK judicial system and its relationship to the US
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just ask Julian Assange about the integrity of the UK judicial system and its relationship to the US
Julian Assange was an idiot.
When he was in Sweden, worst case he would have spent a year in jail, then he would have been removed to Australia. Instead he fled to the UK, did break his bail conditions, spent years in the Colombian embassy, got arrested (absolutely correctly) for breaking his bail conditions, and stays held as long as he is fighting his extradition to the USA.
Breaking bail is a crime, and not one that he could get away with. Even if he is not guilty of the original charges, breaking ba
Re: (Score:2)
Assange was afraid of being grabbed in an extraordinary rendition type abduction, or that the US would try to extradite him as soon as he was locked up.
His fears have been proven to be well founded. The CIA was considering assassinating him: https://news.yahoo.com/kidnapp... [yahoo.com]
Prison would be the perfect place to shank him.
Re: (Score:2)
Julian Assange knew that the bullshit sexual assault charges ("you allegedly didn't wear a condom like I allege you claimed you would!") were an obvious setup to get him captured and extradited to the US. That was proven right, as he committed no further crime but has spent the last decade in confinement or prison awaiting extradition to the US.
It's called statecraft, and these kinds of games (that ruin people's lives and sow fear and corruption) are common.
Re: (Score:3)
Julian Assange won his court case to not be extradited. That would seem to indicate the UK judicial system is functioning just fine. On the basis of that successful court case, it would seem likely that Assange would have been free a long time ago if he'd actually used the UK legal system rather than run away from it. The British at the time were under European rules, which would have meant he was protected under European Human Rights legislation. At this point, however, because of Brexit, he no longer has
Re: (Score:2)
He was only able to fight extradition because he could show evidence that the CIA was trying to murder him, among other things. At the time he fled to the embassy he didn't have that evidence and would likely have lost in court.
His real mistake was travelling internationally at all. Someone like him, high profile and at risk, should have picked a safe country and stuck with it. Iceland comes to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
ASSuming that he did create bitcoin, your argument is that it's OK to steal from your dead partner's family?
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming he is Satoshi, and he had a partner: what exactly did he supposedly steal? Either from his partner or family?
Hu?
That's nothing! (Score:2)
Obviously as the creator he is a multibillionaire so he won't have a problem paying. What's that? He's filed for bankruptcy? Hmm... strange move for a multibillionaire.
Re: (Score:2)
It's resolved. (Score:5, Interesting)
the outcome probably won't resolve the debate over whether Wright is the mythical creator of the peer-to-peer currency, Satoshi Nakamoto.
The debate is resolved. He's not Satoshi.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's resolved. (Score:5, Funny)
I have several times, but trolls modded me down.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> Craig Wright stated nearly 10 years ago that Bitcoin was Turing complete. Literally nobody understood.
These two sentences tell me you are utterly full of shit, rootb.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're referring to this paper [ssrn.com], then you should know that the paper clearly demonstrates that Craig Wright only has exactly one skill: being a huckster. The paper doesn't demonstrate that Bitcoin is Turing complete.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Do you realize that Bitcoin SV is not Bitcoin?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why you are so invested in defending Craig Wright. He's obviously wrong, and why would you go out of your way to support him?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
From your comments, it's obvious that you haven't read and understood either the original bitcoin paper, or the Craig Wright paper I linked to earlier. You don't have that skill, so your comments are just you parroting what someone has told you. Therefore, why have you chosen to believe those people? It makes no sense.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You say he's obviously wrong but then can't clarify.
I did, you didn't understand. Sorry.
In real currency? (Score:2)
Hopefully the court was smart enough to require payment in real money, not some crypto BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Found the derper
How to make money out of thin air (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
He doesn't even need to sell or move coins to prove ownership. He can sign a text message with the key of an address that holds coins. This can be verified by anybody.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
That's the ONLY way I would believe him.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean stupid people? The same people who believe Craig, roy_belton_smith?
Re: (Score:2)
At this point ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fame?
Re: (Score:2)
Why The Real Satoshi Has Never Come Forward (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Surely then you have or had some Bitcoin from the early days. Give us a message signed with a pre-2012 Bitcoin key and I'll believe you.
LOL (Score:1)
Ok, a few things. (Score:2)
First, if Wright doesn't pay (and he probably won't), there's no reason to think he'd pay any agreed settlement either given the settlements were for more.
Second, the case did NOT prove he invented Bitcoin. The jury did not decide that. In the legal system used in the US, the accuser is required to prove their case to a given standard. The defence is required to introduce reasonable doubt to the accuser's claim so that that standard is not reached. The defence does not, in the US legal system, prove anythin
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they didn't. Because of the system, the defence only showed that the prosecution had failed to reach the required standard of proof that there was a partnership. That's all the US system can do. Only those prosecuting can prove anything in the US system.
Re: (Score:1)