Craig Wright Wins 'Only Nominal Damages' of One Pound In Bitcoin Libel Case (theguardian.com) 17
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: For years Craig Wright has claimed that he is the mythical figure who created bitcoin. But a legal bid by the Australian computer scientist to defend his assertion that he is Satoshi Nakamoto resulted in a pyrrhic victory and a tarnished reputation on Monday. A high court judge ruled (PDF) Wright had given "deliberately false evidence" in a libel case and awarded him one pound in damages after he sued a blogger for alleging that his claim to be the elusive Nakamoto was fraudulent. "Because he [Wright] advanced a deliberately false case and put forward deliberately false evidence until days before trial, he will recover only nominal damages," wrote Justice Chamberlain.
Wright had sued blogger Peter McCormack over a series of tweets in 2019, and a video discussion broadcast on YouTube, in which McCormack said Wright was a "fraud" and is not Satoshi. The issue of Nakamoto's identity was not covered by the judge's ruling because McCormack had earlier abandoned a defense of truth in his case. Wright claimed that his reputation within the cryptocurrency industry had been "seriously harmed" by McCormack's claims. He said he had been invited to speak at numerous conferences after the successful submission of academic papers for blind peer review, but 10 invites had been withdrawn following McCormack's tweets. This included alleged potential appearances at events in France, Vietnam, the US, Canada and Portugal.
But McCormack submitted evidence from academics challenging Wright's claims, which were then dropped from his case at the trial in May. Wright later accepted that some of his evidence was "wrong" but said that this was "inadvertent," Chamberlain said in his judgment. The judge noted that there was "no documentary evidence" that Wright had a paper accepted at any of the conferences identified in the earlier version of his libel claim, nor that he received an invitation to speak at them except possibly at one, and that any invitation was withdrawn. Wright's explanation for abandoning this part of his case because the alleged damage to his reputation from the "disinvitations" was outside England and Wales "does not withstand scrutiny," the judge added. He concluded: "Dr Wright's original case on serious harm, and the evidence supporting it, both of which were maintained until days before trial, were deliberately false." [...] [T]he judge said that Wright's pre-trial case over the serious harm to his reputation made it "unconscionable" that he should receive "any more than nominal damages." In statement Wright said: "I intend to appeal the adverse findings of the judgment in which my evidence was clearly misunderstood. I will continue legal challenges until these baseless and harmful attacks designed to belittle my reputation stop."
Wright had sued blogger Peter McCormack over a series of tweets in 2019, and a video discussion broadcast on YouTube, in which McCormack said Wright was a "fraud" and is not Satoshi. The issue of Nakamoto's identity was not covered by the judge's ruling because McCormack had earlier abandoned a defense of truth in his case. Wright claimed that his reputation within the cryptocurrency industry had been "seriously harmed" by McCormack's claims. He said he had been invited to speak at numerous conferences after the successful submission of academic papers for blind peer review, but 10 invites had been withdrawn following McCormack's tweets. This included alleged potential appearances at events in France, Vietnam, the US, Canada and Portugal.
But McCormack submitted evidence from academics challenging Wright's claims, which were then dropped from his case at the trial in May. Wright later accepted that some of his evidence was "wrong" but said that this was "inadvertent," Chamberlain said in his judgment. The judge noted that there was "no documentary evidence" that Wright had a paper accepted at any of the conferences identified in the earlier version of his libel claim, nor that he received an invitation to speak at them except possibly at one, and that any invitation was withdrawn. Wright's explanation for abandoning this part of his case because the alleged damage to his reputation from the "disinvitations" was outside England and Wales "does not withstand scrutiny," the judge added. He concluded: "Dr Wright's original case on serious harm, and the evidence supporting it, both of which were maintained until days before trial, were deliberately false." [...] [T]he judge said that Wright's pre-trial case over the serious harm to his reputation made it "unconscionable" that he should receive "any more than nominal damages." In statement Wright said: "I intend to appeal the adverse findings of the judgment in which my evidence was clearly misunderstood. I will continue legal challenges until these baseless and harmful attacks designed to belittle my reputation stop."
untold damage (Score:1)
Guide for foreigners (Score:4, Interesting)
In the UK if you make an allegation it's up to you to prove it - in front of a court if the accused so desires.
McCormack could not prove that Wight is not Nakamoto (although he clearly isn't), so McCormack more or less automatically wins the case. Legally, that does not "prove" that McCormack is Satoshi Nakamoto, just that Wight made an allegation he couldn't stand behind.
Re: (Score:3)
If he was Satoshi, he could just sign a statement to that effect with his private key.
That he cannot do that when asked for evidence by a court suggests something obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't prove that I'm not Nakamoto either. Nakamoto appeared to value privacy quite a lot. That's inconsistent with a self publicizing person.
Re: (Score:1)
I've been accused of being Satoshi, based on a lot more evidence than Wright has. So I've got a better case there than Wright.
OK, so I think that Bitcoin is just a giant Ponzi scheme and needs to die in a fire and have said so publicly on numerous occasions, and pointed out to the DIY detective that all he'd done was string together a pile of coincidences, but seriously, pretty much anyone who's worked in cryptography in some way could be Satoshi. The "evidence" isn't hard to dig up.
Re: (Score:2)
While I know enough crypto to be Satoshi, I clearly am not because I would never use a Koblitz curve like bitcoin does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A third option would be that it was clearly a statement of opinion rather than an assertion of objective fact, but the wording of the original claims may not have made that a realistic defence.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. McCormack only needed to show that on a balance of probabilities, Wight was nor Satoshi. There was probably enough evidence to win on that point, particularly the fact that Wight has been challenged to prove that he is Satoshi e.g. by signing messages with Satoshi's private key, but has failed to do so.
He dropped that defence because he claimed he couldn't afford legal council for the three weeks it would take to go through all the arguments in court. As such, the judgement does not consider if W
Hold on a sec (Score:1)
So we now have a legally binding decision that a certain person has been identified to be responsible for one of the biggest ponzi schemes in history?
Just asking for a friend who tries desperately to find someone to sue for damages...
Re: (Score:2)
No, we have a legally binding decision that a certain person voluntarily claims to be the person responsible for one of the biggest ponzi schemes in history.
Slightly different, but so much worse.
Peter can pay in Bitcoin (Score:3)
Sent to one of Satoshi's addresses.
fraud? (Score:2)
If he submitted fraudulent evidence under oath then why isn't he being thrown in prison on perjury charges?
I don't give a shit about the outcome of the civil case, if he lied in court he's a criminal