About a decade after Craig Wright claimed to be Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, a British court has ruled that he is not. Justice James Mellor of England’s High Court declared that Wright extensively lied and forged documents to support his false claims. This decision, driven by the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA), helps solidify Bitcoin’s narrative and alleviates the doubts caused by Wright’s assertions. The ruling also exposes Wright to potential lawsuits from those affected by his actions.
Craig Wright is Not Satoshi Nakamoto
Nearly a decade after Craig Wright began terrorizing the Bitcoin community with claims that he was Satoshi Nakamoto, a British court has delivered a verdict—Wright is not Satoshi. The ruling came this month from Justice James Mellor of England’s High Court of Justice in a civil case spearheaded by the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA). His decision stated Wright “lied to the court extensively and repeatedly” while engaging “in forgery on a grand scale” to prove he was Satoshi.
According to Cointelegraph, while hardcore Bitcoiners haven’t thought much about Wright since he began making his claims in 2015, the mainstream media quickly gave him the popular platform he needed to bother and break people, companies, and Bitcoin’s image. However, the court’s decision allows the industry to maintain the narrative of Bitcoin’s “immaculate conception” without any lingering doubt planted by Wright. This was aided in part by publications like Gizmodo, Wired, BBC, The Economist, The Financial Times, and GQ. Many in the media failed to simply look at the facts, including the fact that cryptographic data is easily verified.
Justice James Mellor excoriated Craig Wright at length in his judgment. Source: Cointelegraph
Even in 2019, some in the media had yet to receive the memo about Wright. When Wright filed a U.S. copyright claim for the Bitcoin white paper in April 2019, the Financial Times quoted a Wright spokesman who called it “the first government agency recognition of Craig Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin.”
In addition to the press, Wright fooled Gavin Andresen, to whom Satoshi entrusted the Bitcoin source code when he stopped contributing and moved on to other things. Citing a “muddled environment” Bitcoin developers revoked Andresen’s commit access amid the confusion Wright caused. That was a big deal for the Bitcoin industry at the time. It was a time of great concern when Wright appeared on the scene.
Satoshi, known only via text communications, appears to have been patient, disciplined, reasoned, and tempered. He never tried to bask in the limelight, though he had opportunities. He wanted early adopters to refrain from advertising Bitcoin because he didn’t think it was ready for further adoption. He walked away in 2011, presumably nervous after WikiLeaks began accepting Bitcoin and Andresen gave a presentation to the CIA.
Wright, on the other hand, has always been boastful. He strongly implied he was Satoshi in person, on panels, and in back-dated blog posts to make it seem possible. “Faketoshi” as Wright is referred to on Bitcoin’s internet forums, took every opportunity to place himself in the limelight. Mellor wrote that Wright’s attempt to prove he was Satoshi was “a most serious abuse of this court’s process.”
The decision represents a solid defeat for Wright, though he has said he will appeal. In the meantime, it may expose him to lawsuits from those who have adversely suffered from his antics, including companies and content creators such as Coinbase and Peter McCormack. If Wright were Satoshi, he could have crafted a message (“Craig Wright is Satoshi”) and signed that message with the private key to the Genesis Block, and he would be able to sign the message with a PGP key—one that wasn’t backdated. However, that has never happened.
Conclusion
The British court’s ruling that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto brings a long-awaited resolution to nearly a decade of controversy. Justice James Mellor’s decision, which highlighted Wright’s extensive lies and forgery, helps restore confidence in the Bitcoin community and reaffirms the narrative of Bitcoin’s “immaculate conception”. This verdict also underscores the importance of thorough verification, particularly regarding cryptographic claims, which many media outlets previously overlooked.
The court’s decision not only discredits Wright’s claims but also paves the way for potential legal actions against him by those adversely affected by his false assertions. Companies and individuals, including Coinbase and Peter McCormack, may now seek redress for the harm caused by Wright’s actions. Despite Wright's intention to appeal, the court’s ruling stands as a significant step in protecting the integrity of the Bitcoin community and its foundational history.
Official Website:
Website: https://www.bitrue.com/
Sign Up: https://www.bitrue.com/user/register
Disclaimer: The views expressed belong exclusively to the author and do not reflect the views of this platform. This platform and its affiliates disclaim any responsibility for the accuracy or suitability of the information provided. It is for informational purposes only and not intended as financial or investment advice.