It's interesting that Jack Dorsey (of Twitter fame) and others are now paying for the lawyer bills of all the developers who might be sued by this fraudster [1].
Bitcoin and LN legal defense fund: Jack Dorsey, Alex Morcos, and Martin White posted to the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list the announcement of a legal defense fund for developers working on Bitcoin, LN, and related technology. The fund “is a nonprofit entity that aims to minimize legal headaches that discourage software developers from actively developing Bitcoin and related projects”.
Hasn't he already been ordered to pay $100M in damages? https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2021/12/06/craig-wright-fou... Why is this guy still scamming? Did he not learn his lesson?
It's not his own money he's spending on these lawsuits. He is being bankrolled by a criminal billionaire gambling mogul.
It's an investment being made in order to get access to all of Satoshi's coins on all the bitcoin chains. Those coins are valued very conservatively at no less than 32 billion usd.
From legal standpoint it is interesting case and it can bring precedent to crypto scene. We will know if person can lose coins and retrieve them back lawful way with court order. Even more interesting, that most miners are now located in USA jurisdiction. We know, that Google and others can adjust results based on courts orders. It's interesting if miners who invested hundred millions into mining operation could foll…
Even being non-American with my necessarily flawed understanding of the US constitution, the scenario you described strikes me as a clear violation of the first amendment. First, you would have to compel someone to write new code that changes the way bitcoin fundamentally works. Assuming you manage to do so, you would then have to compel "everyone" to recognise the hard-fork as the "true" chain, again something clear…
It wouldn't violate the First Amendment, since the court isn't going to be a government actor for that purpose. A court absolutely could order someone to change their code to comport with the judgement--I mean, this happened to Apple in the not-too-distant past. What the court can't do is compel everybody to use the new hard fork, first for the simple reason that most of those people aren't being sued, but somewhat more fundamentally for the reason that it doesn't really remedy any judicially-cognizable harm. (That said, it's similarly hard to envision a scenario where the court orders someone to modify Bitcoin's code, especially if you're talking about something that retroactively adjusts balances).
"Faketoshi" as he's known in the community always finds a new way to NOT be able to prove he has access to the early mined coins. It's honestly comical at this point the different bullshit he comes up with. My favorite so far was finding an existing signature on the blockchain from Satoshi, modifying the data, then publishing the signature with different data in an attempt to claim to be the creator of Bitcoin. Every…
Here’s a video of Craig Wright being called out by an actual expert and it’s hilarious https://youtu.be/0thnCDgRJfM . He clearly has no clue how ECDSA signatures work.
Imagine saying your favourite thing in the world is education and then exacerbating yourself that much when the situation isn't going your way. My money is he loves being on stage "teaching" because he's in love with himself, not educating.
He does not want transactions reverted, he wants Bitcoin Core to change the rules of who can spend coins to allow him to make new transactions that are currently not allowed. He is implementing this in his own Bitcoin fork, Bitcoin SV, to demonstrate that it can be done.
A more realistic goal is probably to get the court's blessing to authorize nchain, who maintain the only BSV client (therefore the entire blockchain) , to send Satoshi's BSV coins to Craig. This seems much easier to achieve and allows him to steal coins from all BSV holders without taking from any one BSV holder in particular. Coins previously thought lost would be reintroduced, effectively inflating the coin's suppl…
He wouldn't even need the court's blessing for it though, as they already control the hash power and the reference client (which is no longer under an open license).
"Faketoshi" as he's known in the community always finds a new way to NOT be able to prove he has access to the early mined coins. It's honestly comical at this point the different bullshit he comes up with. My favorite so far was finding an existing signature on the blockchain from Satoshi, modifying the data, then publishing the signature with different data in an attempt to claim to be the creator of Bitcoin. Every…
What if Craig Wright is suffering from mental health problems similar to those that affected Terry Davis, the author of Temple OS? I understand the Craig Wright is violating the norms of public behavior. I think it would be more charitable to not assume that he’s necessarily in his right mind.
What if he knew the creator(s) of Bitcoin, and is upset that a dead person had more impact on the world than he believes he ever will?
Craig Wright is such a fraud. The ALAB Podcast episode on him is hilarious. He's got some serious mental issues. My favorite part about the saga is that after he claimed to be Satoshi and have access to billions of dollars, everyone involved in lawsuits with him agreed. "Yeah, okay you've got billions of dollars. So that means you owe the plaintiff half of that, and the Australian tax authorities a chunk too."
Your first three sentences are pretty fucked up, when read together.
What are the theories about why the real Satoshi doesn't just move all the coin to another wallet himself to prove that Craig Wright is just a scammer?
Possibly that they're dead, such as with the Hal Finney as Satoshi theory. Otherwise they've could've lost the private keys, be in jail, became a hermit, or plenty of options like that. If Satoshi is multiple people, perhaps they can't agree on an action. Or maybe they could just like the chaos.
Or believe the chaos is better than their perceived alternative.