Will Craig Wright’s newly presented proof hold up in court and prove that he is creator of Bitcoin?

Craig Wright’s claim of him being Satoshi Nakamoto has been widely rejected by a lot of prominent people in the cryptocurrency space. However, Wright has been relentless in his quest to prove that he is the creator of Bitcoin, enough to even file “harassment and libel” lawsuits that claim he is Satoshi Nakamoto.

Even before lawsuits, Wright’s proofs weren’t credible enough to prove that he was the creator of Bitcoin. The blogs that he had published were allegedly fraudulent as reported by WikiLeaks. In addition, prominent personalities in the ecosystem like Vitalik Buterin, Changpeng Zhao, Mathew Green, Jerry Brito, etc, all believe that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.

The Recurring Scenario

Craig Wright’s claims started in 2015 and the community rejected his claim to being Satoshi Nakamoto multiple times, however, this has erupted again due to Wright’s lawsuits that are being sent various people in the crypto community. The “harassment and libel” lawsuits of Wright rests on him being able to provide strong proof that he is Satoshi Nakamoto.

Ways Wright can prove his claims

Craig Wright has multiple ways to prove that he is Satoshi Nakamoto and if he ever decided to do that, the whole argument would be put to rest. Some popular fool-proof ways he can stand by his statements which even cryptographers have agreed upon are:

  1. Signing with his private keys and moving some of the funds in the first few blocks.
  2. Wright could sign messages with the keys from dozens of the first bitcoin blocks.
  3. Using PGP Keys that belonged to Nakamoto to sign messages
  4. Combining the above-mentioned ways to prove to further solidify his claims.

The Road So Far

One of the exhibits submitted by Wright, i.e., an email from Uyen Nguyen to Dave Kleiman, faced flak on social media, as many on crypto Twitter like Dr. Funkenstein suggested that it was “forged”.

Subsequently, on April 18, a document of Wright requesting the exhibit [above-mentioned] to be withdrawn appears.  The document stated:

“Dr. Wright withdraws the exhibit because he cannot verify the date of that email exchange. Dr. Wright is not withdrawing the motion and maintains that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.”

New Evidence?

Wright might have seen this coming, or not, but he has another plan in motion, which was disclosed in his recent blog. According to the blog, Wright discredited the above-mentioned methods; he stated:

“The important thing to understand is: law is law. Code (programs and algorithms) in any form is merely evidence… You see, ownership of the key is not proof of anything other than the possession of a key. The call to have a precedent based or derived on or from a key signing is dangerous to say the least, and any competent judge would not base law on such basis.”

In addition, the blog stated that Wright claimed that he co-owned the Bitcoin.org domain and that he paid from his credit card to do so. It is a well-known fact that the Bitcoin.org domain was co-owned by “Satoshi Nakamoto” and “Sirius, a.k.a. Martti Malmi”. The ownership of which, according to Bitcoin.org, was later transferred to others to maintain decentralization of the ownership.

According to Wright’s blog, he paid with his credit card for the blog which was purchased in 2008/2009, the year that Satoshi Nakamoto owned it. Wright’s blog stated:

“Bitcoin was birthed using a credit card payment… You see, a domain purchase in August 2008 is within the Australian tax year, but I was audited, which ended up going to court… What you don’t realise yet is that I used my credit card. Yes, as crazy as it might seem to you, I used my credit card to purchase anonymous services.”

 

Source: Medium | Craig Wright

He also posted a picture of owning the domain, which was rejected by a lot of people, on the grounds of “misleading” the readers.

The Plight Ahead

Wright’s blog outlines that he will use the domain ownership as evidence to prove his claims. Although the nature of this “evidence” seems less likely to hold up in the court of law, Wright clearly stated in his blog:

“Argue all you want about the nature of evidence, but there is one simple point I can categorically prove: The source of the funds that went to pay for the bitcoin.org domain registration on AnonymousSpeech.com derived from my credit card. More importantly, the same records remain current and valid.”

Even if Wright’s claims about the ownership of the domain is true and holds up in the court, it would still not convince the crypto community and cryptographers around the world that he is the creator of Bitcoin.

Source: Read Full Article