The bitcoin community rejoices: the fake creator of the cryptocurrency is exposed.
A London court has issued an unprecedented ruling against Australian computer scientist and businessman Craig Wright, putting an end to the long-running dispute over the identity of bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto. Judge Mellor announced the verdict immediately after the conclusion of the two-month trial, promising to provide a detailed written justification in the near future.
In his verdict, the judge stated: "First of all, Dr. Wright is not the author of an official document on bitcoin. Second, Dr. Wright is not the person who adopted or operated under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto between 2008 and 2011. Third, Dr. Wright is not the person who created the bitcoin system. And fourth, he is not the author of the original versions of the bitcoin software."
The lawsuit against Wright was filed by the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (Copa), a consortium of cryptocurrency companies. Copa participants include well-known companies and personalities, including the co-founder of Twitter* Jack Dorsey, Coinbase and the Bitcoin MicroStrategy investment company. Their goal was to prevent further attempts by Wright to impersonate the creator of bitcoin and use this to gain influence in the industry.
The charges against Wright, in particular, related to the falsification of documents submitted by him as evidence. The alliance's experts indicated that they found signs of retroactive changes that were made using software versions that did not exist at the time of publication of the original documents. So, in one of the documents, they found signs of text generation using ChatGPT.
Copa's lawyer, Jonathan Howe, called Wright's claims "blatant lies and artfully constructed fiction backed up by forgeries on an industrial scale."
Surprisingly, even the experts representing Wright's defense largely agreed with the prosecution's conclusions, including the fact that the original document on bitcoin was created using OpenOffice software, while the version provided by Wright was written in LaTeX.
Under cross-examination, Wright himself questioned whether Dr. Simon Plaks, an expert appointed by his own lawyers, was not qualified to perform this task. He stated that Plaks is a psychologist and has no relevant knowledge in the field of information security.
A Copa spokesperson commented on the court's decision as a victory for developers of the entire open source community: "For more than eight years, Dr. Wright and his financial backers lied about being Satoshi Nakamoto and used these lies to intimidate developers in the bitcoin community. All this ends today," he concluded.
At the end of 2015, Wright stirred up the Bitcoin community with his statement that he is the very creator of bitcoin Satoshi Nakamoto. An Australian "revealed his second identity" while speaking via Skype to an unsuspecting audience at a Bitcoin investor conference in Las Vegas. Many experts have raised serious doubts about the veracity of Wright's statement, but no one has been able to provide one hundred percent proof of the falsity (as well as reliability) of this "confession".
A London court has issued an unprecedented ruling against Australian computer scientist and businessman Craig Wright, putting an end to the long-running dispute over the identity of bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto. Judge Mellor announced the verdict immediately after the conclusion of the two-month trial, promising to provide a detailed written justification in the near future.
In his verdict, the judge stated: "First of all, Dr. Wright is not the author of an official document on bitcoin. Second, Dr. Wright is not the person who adopted or operated under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto between 2008 and 2011. Third, Dr. Wright is not the person who created the bitcoin system. And fourth, he is not the author of the original versions of the bitcoin software."
The lawsuit against Wright was filed by the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (Copa), a consortium of cryptocurrency companies. Copa participants include well-known companies and personalities, including the co-founder of Twitter* Jack Dorsey, Coinbase and the Bitcoin MicroStrategy investment company. Their goal was to prevent further attempts by Wright to impersonate the creator of bitcoin and use this to gain influence in the industry.
The charges against Wright, in particular, related to the falsification of documents submitted by him as evidence. The alliance's experts indicated that they found signs of retroactive changes that were made using software versions that did not exist at the time of publication of the original documents. So, in one of the documents, they found signs of text generation using ChatGPT.
Copa's lawyer, Jonathan Howe, called Wright's claims "blatant lies and artfully constructed fiction backed up by forgeries on an industrial scale."
Surprisingly, even the experts representing Wright's defense largely agreed with the prosecution's conclusions, including the fact that the original document on bitcoin was created using OpenOffice software, while the version provided by Wright was written in LaTeX.
Under cross-examination, Wright himself questioned whether Dr. Simon Plaks, an expert appointed by his own lawyers, was not qualified to perform this task. He stated that Plaks is a psychologist and has no relevant knowledge in the field of information security.
A Copa spokesperson commented on the court's decision as a victory for developers of the entire open source community: "For more than eight years, Dr. Wright and his financial backers lied about being Satoshi Nakamoto and used these lies to intimidate developers in the bitcoin community. All this ends today," he concluded.
At the end of 2015, Wright stirred up the Bitcoin community with his statement that he is the very creator of bitcoin Satoshi Nakamoto. An Australian "revealed his second identity" while speaking via Skype to an unsuspecting audience at a Bitcoin investor conference in Las Vegas. Many experts have raised serious doubts about the veracity of Wright's statement, but no one has been able to provide one hundred percent proof of the falsity (as well as reliability) of this "confession".
