He Says He Invented Bitcoin and Is Suing Those Who Doubt Him (bloomberg.com) 148
At a convention on digital currency, rarely does an audience Q&A session include a question as incendiary as, "Why is this fraud allowed to speak at this conference?" But that's how a discussion about Bitcoin ended up last year in Seoul. From a report: The supposed fraud is Craig Wright, an Australian-born technologist who gained notoriety three years ago when he declared himself the inventor of Bitcoin. The provocateur is Vitalik Buterin, a baby-faced Russian-Canadian programmer who helped create another popular digital currency called Ether. No one disputes Buterin's role in Ether; many reject Wright's claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the mysterious genius behind Bitcoin.
Wright is a comic-book supervillain for some in the world of cryptocurrency. Buterin's rant was applauded by a handful of people at the conference, including one of the panelists and a man on the sidelines wearing a vest and metallic fiber shirt. It had the feel of an impromptu live performance of a Twitter flame war. The whole thing lasted 90 seconds. Footage recorded from the crowd provided an amusing YouTube video and sparked a fresh round of tweets mocking Wright. That appeared to be that, until a year later when Buterin received a letter from Wright's attorney. The legal notice, dated April 12, said Wright intends to sue Buterin in the U.K. for defamation. Less than a week later, Wright filed suit with similar claims against a podcaster named Peter McCormack, seeking 100,000 pounds ($129,000) in damages. And on May 2, Wright's lawyers served Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin investor, at a cryptocurrency meet-up in London.
Wright is a comic-book supervillain for some in the world of cryptocurrency. Buterin's rant was applauded by a handful of people at the conference, including one of the panelists and a man on the sidelines wearing a vest and metallic fiber shirt. It had the feel of an impromptu live performance of a Twitter flame war. The whole thing lasted 90 seconds. Footage recorded from the crowd provided an amusing YouTube video and sparked a fresh round of tweets mocking Wright. That appeared to be that, until a year later when Buterin received a letter from Wright's attorney. The legal notice, dated April 12, said Wright intends to sue Buterin in the U.K. for defamation. Less than a week later, Wright filed suit with similar claims against a podcaster named Peter McCormack, seeking 100,000 pounds ($129,000) in damages. And on May 2, Wright's lawyers served Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin investor, at a cryptocurrency meet-up in London.
Who says tech is boring? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Who says tech is boring? (Score:3, Funny)
Are you making fun of these fools? I'll sue you! I'll sue you all!!!!!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who says tech is boring? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think roughly two people care about Wright's claim (Wright and Buterin), but I think a lot of people are enjoying the internet drama while munching popcorn.
I don't care about this case- but I do care about frivolous lawsuits in general as they cost the taxpayer money and delay real court cases in which someone potentially innocent could be waiting on a court date so that they can go free and about their life.
People like Wright are abusing the court system and causing real distress to real people in the process of their selfish pursuit of money.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care about this case- but I do care about frivolous lawsuits in general as they cost the taxpayer money and delay real court cases in which someone potentially innocent could be waiting on a court date so that they can go free and about their life.
People like Wright are abusing the court system and causing real distress to real people in the process of their selfish pursuit of money.
You do realize that Wright's case will be tried in civil court, where nobody goes to jail, right?
All frivolous cases are civil in nature, as the alternative in a British and British-derived legal system is criminal court where the state is prosecuting Bad People (tm) and there are no frivolous cases.
Re: Who says tech is boring? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's actually awesome :) frankly going to court is just chump change for Buterin.
Wright have to be stupid to go to court with Buterin on this. The amount meant nothing even if Buterin loses and he would probably gladly lose if Wright can prove he is Sakamoto :)
Re: (Score:2)
I think roughly two people care about Wright's claim (Wright and Buterin), but I think a lot of people are enjoying the internet drama while munching popcorn.
I don't care about this case- but I do care about frivolous lawsuits in general as they cost the taxpayer money and delay real court cases in which someone potentially innocent could be waiting on a court date so that they can go free and about their life.
Then perhaps we could hand them each a pointed stick, push them into a wire cage and get them to resolve it on pay-per-view.
Re: Who says tech is boring? (Score:1)
Wright claims to be smart enough to have invented bitcoin, but not smart enough to have left any trace of authorship.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I can't believe /. is doing clickbait headlines now.
It's 2019. You don't have to start a headline with a pronoun, shitheads.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe /. is doing clickbait headlines now.
Now? Did you just awaken from a coma?
Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe one of these courts will take the rationale step of demanding that he make a trivial transaction from the Satoshi wallet, in which case things will be proven one way or the other pretty quickly.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Common sense doesn't work here. This is a legal matter.
The original claim (Wright invented Bitcoin) needs evidence. It would be perfectly fine to say "this guy claims to have invented Bitcoin, but doesn't have any evidence".
That's not what Buterin said, though (if we're to believe TFS, which is all I'm bothering to read today). If Buterin indeed accused Wright of being a fraud, then Buterin would have to have evidence of actual fraud to be making a truthful statement. That means showing evidence that Wright actually committed fraud.
Sure, Wright could voluntarily present evidence that he was truthful the whole time, and that would be devastating to Wright's accusations of fraud, but he doesn't have to. From a legal perspective, they've both been making claims without evidence, and Wright was the first to legally call the bluff and make the evidence necessary.
It's a precarious situation. If Wright ever actually met the definition of fraud (by saying something false for gain), Buterin might sufficiently have grounds to call Wright a fraud, and escape any legal consequences. If Wright's been extremely careful with his statements, though, it might not be possible to prove fraud, which would make such an accusation indeed libelous.
Now, I'm no lawyer, and all the legal matters here would be under UK law, but it still seems like a good example of why one must be very careful with public accusations.
Re: Good! (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with that assessment (let's all be non-lawyers!) is that fraud only has a legal connotation when used as an action. As in "Craig Wright engaged in fraud!" But when used as a personal descriptor, it is simply a claim of personal dishonesty, with no clear implication of law-breaking. There's no need to prove Wright engaged in fraud because that is not implied by Buterin's statement within the context of a tech conference.
Re: Good! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Good! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm also not a lawyer, but I watch a panel show (HIGNFY) where the most frequent libel defendant in the UK is a team captain and regularly jokes about where the line is. Here the defendant would seem to have a solid defence of "honest opinion".
Re: UK law (Score:2)
I had been suspecting that humanity is going insane this century, and this story adds one more piece of anecdotal evidence to that effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Even so though, this seems to be really pushing it. Also he'll have to show evidence that the suggestion he's a fraud affected his reputation as a fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK has some fairly infamous libel law. It's not a coincidence that Wright, an Australian, is suing people in the UK.
Re: (Score:1)
Buterin isn't accusing Wright of committing fraud, he's accusing Wright of being a fraud. Wright is suing for defamation of character, which means Wright will likely need to show that he is in fact not a fraud to prove his character was defamed. The only way to prove he isn't a fraud is to prove he is the inventor of bitcoin. This is a civil case not a criminal one so the burden of proof shifts around.
Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
All Buterin has to show is that he believed Wright was a fraud at the time he said it. Since Wright was making an extraordinary claim with no evidence, it would be normal to assume that Wright was a fraud. Buterin did not state anything than was not already assumed by most people familiar with the details, so it is hard to claim that Buterin lied to hurt Wright's reputation when it seems he merely publicized his own reasonable evaluation.
Imagine if movie studios could sue movie critics for bad reviews.
Re: (Score:2)
your analysis is not wrong; however, does it account for the fact that this is to be decided under UK law, not US law?
Re: (Score:2)
(IANAL, but I follow a bunch on YouTube) I don't think calling someone a 'fraud' in common parlance is per se defamation. I could be wrong about that, especially if Buterin has made other statements more along the lines of "I know he's a fraud" rather than "I think he's a fraud". One is a statement of fact, and the other is a statement of opinion. It's when you make false statements of fact in order to harm someone that it becomes defamation.
If Buterin's statements are clearly opinion I think he should be p
Re: (Score:2)
It harms his reputation, which counts plenty as harm in court. Courts don't just look at monetary harm, they'll look at social, physical, and psychological harm just as well. How much harm that could be I have no idea, but it's plenty to fuel a defamation case.
The real weaknesses to the case as I see them are Buterin's statements are clearly opinion, which can't be defamation (or at least, are extremely hard to show defamation for), and Buterin appears to genuinely believe the statements. Both of these are
buy buy buy buy (Score:2)
Gotta keep the drama going to pump those prices up!
Though, I am not entirely sure how this helps bitcoin. Maybe its the "no bad press" theory?
Compensation? (Score:1)
seeking 100,000 pounds ($129,000) in damages
Shouldn't he ask for payment in bitcoins? Fake claim paid in fake money.
Prove it (Score:5, Insightful)
Just sign a message with Satoshi's key.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Prove it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Prove it (Score:4, Informative)
What's the American IRS got to do with an Australian dude who's suing a Russian in a British court?
Re: (Score:1)
See also: Julian Assange. Kim Dotcom.
Re: (Score:1)
I personally know of several people who were taxed in the hundreds of thousands of dollars on just the value of the stocks alone. They had not sold any stocks, they had not realized a dime of income/profit. Almost ruined quite a few peoples lives...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're misunderstanding an important tenet of English defamation law (as opposed to typical US laws): truth is NOT an absolute defence against defamation. The question is: did the defendant maliciously intend to cause damage to the plaintiff's reputation? That's why England's such an attractive jurisdiction for defamation plaintiffs. Even if Wright can't prove he's Nakamoto (or even if Buterin could prove he wasn't Nakamoto), he may still convince a jury that Buterin acted vindictively and win his case.
Re:Prove it (Score:5, Informative)
Didn't the Defamation Act of 2013 [wikipedia.org] allow truth as a defense?
Also, if the defendants are US citizens, the SPEECH Act [wikipedia.org] makes foreign judgements unenforceable in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Then Buterin had better be able to prove his allegation that Wright is a fraud is substantially true. How Buterin does that without Wright cooperating and outing himself as a fraud is anyone's guess.
Re: (Score:3)
Defamation generally has a pretty high bar. We generally like people to be able to say what they want to each other without having to worry about a lawsuit over every little thing. It's usually pretty hard to show that someone knowingly lied with the intention of harming another person. Most courts require specific statements of fact, like X happened on Y day, or SoAndSo tricked SomeGuy out of SomeAmountOfMoney by lying about Something. Just saying someone is a liar or a fraud isn't enough.
Saying someone is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't the Defamation Act of 2013 [wikipedia.org] allow truth as a defense?
Irrelevant as the defendant you can't compel the other party to prove they weren't a fraud. Wright doesn't need to provide any proof of anything, the defendant needs to show evidence of fraud which is kind of hard to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where the statement was originally made is irrelevant, to be heard in an English court (Not UK, Scots and Irish legal systems are different) what counts is where the information has been published.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:All "satoshi" needs to do is to is.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The real Satoshi spent a LOT of time and effort to stay anonymous and untraceable. His intent was to launch the network, then let it run without him. There's no benefit or motivation for him to return.
There's also the possibility that Satoshi is gone. Hal Finney has my vote as probably being Satosi, and he passed away from Lou Gehrig's disease shortly after Satoshi sent his last message.
Other than Craig making authorship claim, there is no evidence at all for him to be Satoshi. Examination of the many "proofs" he's given have *all* turned out to be fraudulent. Makes for interesting reading actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Or Satoshi lost access to his wallet.
If that was the case I would for fuck sure stay anonymous.
Re:All "satoshi" needs to do is to is.... (Score:5, Interesting)
> Or Satoshi lost access to his wallet.
One theory is that Dave Kleiman was Satoshi, Craig knew it, and he grabbed Dave's hard drive when Dave died. Calvin Ayre, Craig's sugardaddy, is funding a massive TrueCrypt brute-force cracking operation, under this theory, hoping to recover the Satoshi keys. The current lawsuit in Florida gets to this matter.
Until then he needs to brag and delay. His efforts to use ECDSA tricks to fake signing keys, etc., were all part of the rouse to build expectation. Apparently the passphrase was longer than expected so now he looks like a fool and a knave.
Re: (Score:3)
Skipping your cognitive therapy sessions again, I see.
The inventor was... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
True story (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember how U.S. Robotics got the patent on hitting "+++" with a one-second gap of silence on either side, to put a modem in command mode?
I invented that.
Not for U.S. Robotics, but for another company making a different kind of communications gear. I didn't know about the USR patent (it may not even have been applied for at the time), and I didn't think to file for a patent, because it was such an obvious solution to the problem of whatever your "escape" sequence was occurring in the regular data stream.
I don't know how much money I could have made if I'd patented it first, and 35 years later, I'm well off enough that I don't care about the money, but the novelty aspect still bothers me. I've thought since then that a technology patent should have to pass a "competent engineer" test. Get a professional of sufficient skill, sort of like an expert witness, and pose the problem to them. If they solve it the same way, then you've failed the novelty test and shouldn't get the patent.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Except that was Hayes, not USR.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected.
Re: (Score:1)
My company, at least, probably could have. We certainly weren't big enough to keep a patent attorney on staff, but we probably had one on retainer, and we already held a few patents. But you're right, there's no way I could have done it as an individual.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your competent engineer test is sometimes the problem is novel, and the solution is obvious. So, on one hand you have the incandescent light bulb, everyone gets that it's a thing and it's experimenting with formulations til you get decent longevity. On the other hand, there are inventions that come out of left field like, and this is a stupid example, the squatty potty. Given the problem statement (I need a footstool to poop), it's obvious it will be made out of plastic for cost reasons,
Re: True story (Score:2, Insightful)
The original idea of parents was to protect investment in technology investment, not problem identification, or market creation. The squatty potty isn't really innovation, and I'd be surprised if no one had put a stool underneath to poop easier. It's a great example of something undeserving of patent protectioby
Re: (Score:2)
Problem identification is one aspect of invention. It's not required (see edison light bulbs), but it's there are products where figuring out how to shape a piece of plastic isn't the invention and it's use is.
Hell, figuring out you can take an aspirin daily to prevent a heart attack, not just when needed to relieve a headache, doesn't involve creating any new physical object But it was patentable. Seems innovative to me. And it wasn't free to develop, people had to run trials to demonstrate it, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Oops, rounding error. I did this work in 1982 or 1983. Hayes or USR, I still didn't know about +++ at the time. and I didn't hear about the patent until many years later.
The company was a 35-person startup, and even though we were all techies, none of us could afford our own computers. Don't forget that a bare-bones Apple IIe with a Hayes Smartmodem 1200 cost over $5000 in today's dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
The law suit should be against him (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not far off - the judge in his case is getting annoyed at Craig's lack of compliance with a "motion to compel". Seems Craig is claiming he sent $11 million in bitcoin to someone he doesn't know and can't track down. Oddly the judge doesn't think this is plausible.
This may backfire on him monumentally.
https://twitter.com/stephendpa... [twitter.com]
Oh, you want slander and defamation? (Score:1)
Sounds like Craig Wright is a lying sack of shit trying to cash in on someone else's fame with no proof to back it up.
You can put up, or you can shut the fuck up .. because if you are the inventor of bitcoin you should be able to demonstrate your billions in net worth of bitcoin which is pristine and never been sold.
I sincerely hope this lying asshole gets told in court that he need to provide proof of his claims or have summary judgement ag
The main problem is the UK's laws allow this shit. (Score:1)
Over there, truth isn't an absolute defense.
And speech laws have been so castrated in the last 5 years or so, the cops have turned away from actual crime to pursue the cottage industry of harassing those who say mean things on Twitter...
Where you can be fined and/or jailed simply for telling or performing a joke.
Because it's up to the court, not the person telling the joke, to decide what the context is.
Re: (Score:2)
How the hell does a UK court have any jurisdiction in this case? Comments made in Korea by a Russian about an Australian = ???
Easy to prove (Score:3)
If Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto then it will be absolutely trivial for him to prove. He can probably do it within 60 seconds of deciding he wants to, and everyone will either be totally convinced or else they'll have to admit the cryptography everyone uses is hopelessly broken. Either way, he'll be a superstar forever. So put up or shut up.
Re:Easy to prove (Score:5, Informative)
Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto. It is the team of at least Nick Szabo and Hal Finley, possibly with Nakamoto or someone else consulting (a neighbor of Finley who lived a few blocks away). There are several pieces of key evidence, including the fact that Szabo wrote several papers on Bit Gold and digital currencies using crypto prior to the Satoshi paper, and Satoshi uses the same terminology in his paper.
https://gizmodo.com/nick-szabo-is-probably-satoshi-nakamoto-1704755126
https://www.ccn.com/text-analysis-confirms-craig-wright-not-satoshi-nakamoto/
Re: (Score:2)
If Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto then it will be absolutely trivial for him to prove.
Craig Wright doesn't need to prove anything as part of this case. He's not the defendant. Words have consequences and if you accuse people of being a fraud on a public stage you may want to have some solid evidence to back up your case.
Re: What I'm wondering is this (Score:1)
Maybe because the AP bothered a guy that has nothing to do with that, while on the other hand, Wright willingly pour himself in that mess.
Defamation. (Score:2)
UK defamation law?
Ouch.
To get through that court, you're going to have to prove that you *are* the guy... pretty much there's no way around that. This is beyond "innocent until proven guilty" (which doesn't work in many areas of law).
They allege something. You ask for relief because they are lying. To do that, you have to prove they are lying. They don't have to prove they are telling the truth (because that would be proving a negative), just that they have a reasonable foundation to allege it.
It's like
Re: (Score:2)
Not since the Defamation Act.
They just claim it was an opinion. It's then up to him to prove it was a damaging opinion, which basically means proving that it's true first (otherwise it wouldn't be damaging, because you'd just say "it's not true"), and THEN prove that he incurred damage.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what happens... (Score:2)
When you publish anonymously or under a false name.
Kinda hard to prove one way or another.
Re: (Score:2)
Except in this specific case, it really really is easy to prove that he is Satoshi.
Either way, he's going to have a hard time of it with British defamation law, unless of course, he is Satoshi ..
This reminded me of (Score:2)
BITCONNEEEE.....CT! [youtube.com]
Everyone is saying Prove It! Prove It! (Score:2)
Even if he wasn't personally involved, "Satoshi Nakamoto" helped to facilitate criminal activity.
It's only a matter time before the US want him caged up and shipped to them or a criminal that got ripped off puts a bullet in him.
He should get with the email guy (Score:2)
What a douche. (Score:1)
Jannes DeRuyter 1637 (Score:1)