Key Takeaways
In a decisive verdict, a British High Court ruled against Craig Wrights claims that he was Bitcoin founder Satoshi Nakamoto.
In the detailed written declaration, the judge provided a comprehensive account of the trials proceedings. The ruling explicitly states that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto and outlines the reasons why his evidence was fraudulent.
In response to the March 14 ruling, COPA (Crypto Open Patent Alliance) took further legal steps to ensure Craig Wright can no longer assert his claims of being Satoshi Nakamoto. As stated by a COPA spokesperson, COPA is requesting a court order designed to avoid further litigation terror campaigns. This move is aimed at preventing Wright from continuing to assert his claims, which the court found were untrue.
The recently released written verdict explains why Wrights evidence was deemed fraudulent and clarifies that he is not Satoshi Nakamoto. The comprehensive nature of this verdict aims to put an end to the ongoing disputes and prevent Wright from perpetuating his claims in the future.
Mr Justice Mellor expressed no doubt about Wrights dishonesty throughout the trial, highlighting the extensive forgery involved. Despite the ruling, Wright remained defiant, announcing his intention to appeal the decision.
During the court trial, Mr Justice Mellor tried to be as objective as he could. However, he found that Wright was not nearly as clever as he thinks he is. One could, potentially, describe the judges words as extremely diplomatic.
In the COPA vs. Craig Wright case, Mr Justice Mellor found that Wright lied extensively and repeatedly to the court, both in his written and oral evidence, primarily concerning forged documents intended to support his claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto. These falsehoods were part of Wrights broader attempt to substantiate his identity as the creator of Bitcoin.
He said:
Dr Wright presents himself as an extremely clever person. However, in my judgment, he is not nearly as clever as he thinks he is. In both his written evidence and in days of oral evidence under cross-examination, I am entirely satisfied that Dr Wright lied to the Court extensively and repeatedly. Most of his lies related to the documents he had forged which purported to support his claim. All his lies and forged documents were in support of his biggest lie: his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
Mr Justice Mellor added:
As soon as one lie was exposed, Dr Wright resorted to further lies and evasions. The final destination frequently turned out to be either Dr Wright blaming some other (often unidentified) person for his predicament or what can only be described as technobabble delivered by him in the witness box.
Although as a person with expertise in IT security, Dr Wright must have thought his forgeries would provide convincing evidence to support his claim to be Satoshi or some other point of detail and would go undetected, the evidence showsthat most of his forgeries turned out to be clumsy.
Indeed, certain of Dr Wrights responses in cross-examination effectively acknowledged that point: from my recollection at least twice he indicated if he had wanted to forge a document, he would have done a much better job.
The judge concluded that for Wrights claims to be true, he would have to be very unlucky. The evidence, however, painted a different picture, revealing a pattern of deceit and forgery in his attempts to prove his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto.
He added:
The true position is far simpler. It is, however, far from simple because Dr Wright has lied so much over so many years that, on certain points, it can be difficult to pinpoint what actually happened.
Those difficulties do not detract from the fact that there is a very considerable body of evidence against Dr Wright being Satoshi. To the extent that it is said there is evidence supporting his claim, it is at best questionable or of very dubious relevance or entirely circumstantial and at worst, it is fabricated and/or based on documents I am satisfied have been forged on a grand scale by Dr Wright.
These fabrications and forgeries were exposed in the evidence which I received during the Trial. For that reason, this Judgment contains considerable technical and other detail which is required to expose the true scale of his mendacious campaign to prove he was/is Satoshi Nakamoto.
In his ruling on the COPA vs. Craig Wright case, Mr Justice Mellor highlighted significant inconsistencies in Dr. Wrights testimony.
Mr Justice Mellor said:
Furthermore, in his evidence, Dr Wright made significant errors which Satoshi would never have made, even after this length of time. Some of these relate to Satoshis interactions with individuals not previously made public. Others relate to technical matters which Dr Wright simply got wrong but which Satoshi would not have got wrong.
Also, Mr Justice Mellor said Wright had many years to substantiate his claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto. However, as challenges to his claim intensified, Wright escalated his use of falsehoods and forged documents.
The judge noted that Wrights behavior, characterized by increasing arrogance and a belief in his intellectual superiority, starkly contrasted with the more humble and collaborative tone evident in Satoshis writings. Judge concluded that Wrights demeanor and the nature of his evidence were inconsistent with that of Satoshi Nakamoto, further undermining his claim to be the creator of Bitcoin.
He said:
Ultimately, I consider it is likely that the real Satoshi would never have set out to prove in litigation that he actually was Satoshi and certainly not in the way that Dr Wright attempted to do so.
Since 2019, Craig Wright has initiated several lawsuits against Bitcoin developers in an attempt to gain control over the Bitcoin network and suppress critics of his claims. The Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund has argued that these lawsuits threaten the future of Bitcoin by discouraging developers from continuing their work on the blockchain.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Mellor acknowledged the negative impact of Wrights aggressive legal strategies on the Bitcoin development community.
He noted that Wrights litigious approach was inconsistent with the collaborative and non-confrontational nature typically associated with Satoshi Nakamoto. Judge Mellor pointed out that the real Satoshi would likely have accepted differing views, which led to Bitcoins hard forks, and moved on without resorting to legal action. This recognition of Wrights adversarial tactics further supported the courts decision in favor of COPA.
Mr Justice Mellor was pretty clear when giving his final word:
He stated:
First, 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 between 2008 and 2011. Third, Dr Wright is not the person who created the Bitcoin system. Fourth, Dr Wright is not the author of the initial versions of the Bitcoin Software.
The ruling represents a significant victory for the COPA, which sought to invalidate Wrights claims to the Bitcoin whitepaper and related intellectual property.
Wrights vow to appeal the ruling suggests that this legal saga is far from over. His legal team is expected to challenge Mr Justice Mellors conclusions. This decision follows a series of legal and public relations setbacks for Wright, who has faced numerous accusations of fraud and forgery over the years.
Following the March 14 ruling against him, Craig Wright initially stated he would evaluate his options once the final written verdict was released. Despite the judges verdict, it is evident Wright intends to carry on claiming that he is Satoshi Nakamoto.
Was this Article helpful? Yes No
More here:
Craig Wright "Slippery" and "Not as Clever as He Thinks He is" Judge Blasts Would-be Satoshi Nakamoto - CCN.com