Breaking News

Craig Wright Is Not Satoshi Nakamoto, Rules UK Court

Craig Wright Is Not Satoshi Nakamoto, Rules UK Court

Table of Contents

A UK court has ruled that Australian computer scientist Craig Wright, who claims to have invented Bitcoin, is not Satoshi Nakamoto and did not author the Bitcoin whitepaper. 

The Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) had taken Wright to court to prevent him from suing developers and other crypto community members, claiming intellectual property rights for the technology powering Bitcoin. 

Not Satoshi Nakamoto 

Craig Wright has long been claiming to be the author of the 2008 Bitcoin whitepaper, published under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. COPA took Wright to court in an attempt to stop him from suing Bitcoin developers and asked the court for a ruling that Wright was not Satoshi Nakamoto. According to the judge, the evidence presented during the trial was overwhelming, and the judgment was issued within seconds of the conclusion of the case while promising a lengthy judgment in due course. 

“I will make certain declarations, which I am satisfied are useful and are necessary to do justice between the parties. First, that Dr. Wright is not the author of the Bitcoin white paper. Second, Dr. Wright is not the person who adopted or operated under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto in the period 2008 to 2011. Third, Dr. Wright is not the person who created the Bitcoin System. And, fourth, he is not the author of the initial versions of the Bitcoin software. Any further relief will be dealt with in my written judgment.”

The outcome is seen as a huge victory for COPA, whose members include Jack Dorsey’s payments firm Block, Coinbase, and MicroStrategy. Speaking about the ruling, a COPA spokesperson stated, 

“This decision is a win for developers, for the entire open source community, and for the truth. For over eight years, Dr Wright and his financial backers have lied about his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto and used that lie to bully and intimidate developers in the Bitcoin community. That ends today with the court’s ruling that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.”

Perjury Allegations 

COPA had accused Wright of forging a significant number of documents provided as evidence to substantiate his claims. According to COPA’s expert witness, the group found hallmarks of backdated edits created or altered using software that did not exist when the documents were supposedly created. One document also contained traces of ChatGPT’s involvement. 

COPA’s lawyer, Jonathan Hough, called Wright’s claim a brazen lie based on an elaborate false narrative supported by forgery on an industrial scale. 

“There are elements of Dr Wright’s conduct that stray into farce. 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.”

COPA also planned to seek an injunction against Wright that would prevent him from ever saying he was the creator of Bitcoin. Wright’s counsel opposed such a plea, arguing that such a prohibition is unprecedented in the UK and would prevent Wright from even casually mentioning he is Satoshi Nakamoto without incurring a fine or going to prison. According to Wright’s counsel, such an injunction could be sinister and urged the court to consider a judgment that would not infringe on Wright’s freedom of expression. 

Wright’s Team Hits Back 

Wright’s team hit back at COPA’s allegations of forgery, arguing that they needed more evidence and their expert witness’s evidence was inadmissible. Wright also raised doubts about the expert witness appointed by his own solicitors, stating, 

“I didn’t choose Dr Placks, I didn’t want Dr Placks. Dr Placks is a psychologist. He has a degree in psychology. He has no qualifications in information security.”

Hough has stated that COPA plans to ask prosecutors if Wright had perjured himself during the trial.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice

Investment Disclaimer
Related Topics: 

You may like