By CCN: Let’s be real. The number of people who believe that Craig Wright is Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto can easily fit in a sparsely-populated Telegram channel. It includes Wright, Calvin Ayre, Ryan X. Charles, a few dozen BSV supporters, and an army of Twitter bots.
Nevertheless, one of the boldest and most baseless claims in the history of financial technology faces a test later this week.
As CCN reported earlier this morning, a US court in Florida has ordered Wright to produce documents detailing that Tulip Trust thing he keeps talking about. It’s also ordered him to, essentially, prove that he’s Satoshi Nakamoto.
As legal experts have pointed out, Wright’s defenses against the discovery motions of the plaintiffs were pretty weak.
He didn’t explain why, for example, the executor of the Tulip Trust – whoever that is – would be unable to produce the requested documents.
He’ll be in pretty bad standing as the case proceeds if he fails to comply with some pretty basic fact-finding.
He’s yet to prove that Dave Kleiman ever gave up his stake in the company they co-owned.
He’s yet to prove he’s Bitcoin mastermind Satoshi Nakamoto.
In fact, he’s yet to prove virtually anything besides the fact that he’s very convincing to low-information users who want easy answers. He has proven that he has thin skin and a propensity for taking people to court.
Let me be clear: anyone could have stepped up and said they were Satoshi Nakamoto back when he did.
I would have been wide awake and listening.
I don’t believe the only way to prove that identity is to sign messages with coins that most likely don’t exist anymore. There are other potential ways to prove it, such as validly using Satoshi Nakamoto’s PGP key, the one he used to sign commits for Bitcoin Core when he was still contributing. Of course, this could have been destroyed, as well.
But there has to be some bit of proof, especially for someone who lives a relatively stable lifestyle — something beyond false evidence that can be reproduced by virtually anyone.
Let’s assume there isn’t, though. Take a leap of faith and assume Craig Wright destroyed every piece of evidence that supposedly makes him Satoshi Nakamoto. In that case, he’s got no right coming back now and claiming the identity, even if it belonged to him at one point. We still have to address his claims about having purchased Bitcoin.org, after all.
Which he probably didn’t.
Craig Wright refutes the fundamental ideas of Satoshi Nakamoto. He made a ludicrous claim that he hated Liberty Reserve, and this hatred was part of the foundation of Bitcoin. Meanwhile, Satoshi Nakamoto spoke of integrating Liberty Reserve.
Craig Wright’s antics don’t make much sense. The need for validation as Satoshi, in the form of expensive lawsuits against those who don't accept it, is a red flag in and of itself.
If you’re Satoshi, why not come back as Satoshi?
Craig Wright has until the 8th and 9th to produce the evidence the plaintiffs seek. It will be an exciting ride whether he provides it or not. On the off chance that this case somehow determines Wright is, in fact, Satoshi Nakamoto, things would quickly change in the crypto industry.
Wright claims that blockchains besides Bitcoin SV, including Bitcoin Core, will be found in violation of various patents. One among a sea of outlandish claims, the legal precedent of his being Satoshi Nakamoto would make a remarkable difference in the future of cryptocurrency.
But what are the odds?
The subject seems so decided against him that there aren’t even any active predictions markets on the subject. Perhaps those who believe and those who don’t should put their money where their mouth is.