Open 24/7/365

We Have A Life-Time Warranty /
Guarantee On All Products. (Includes Parts And Labor)

Craig Wright Briefly Forgets He ‘Invented’ Bitcoin (#GotBitcoin?)

Craig Wright appears to have briefly forgotten that he wrote the Bitcoin white paper while speaking at a recent conference in Toronto. Craig Wright Briefly Forgets He ‘Invented’ Bitcoin (#GotBitcoin?)

Wright, lead brain behind alternative cryptocurrency Bitcoin Satoshi Vision, caused controversy earlier this year after suing community members who refused to acknowledge that he created Bitcoin under the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym.

An eagle-eyed Twitter user shared a clip from Wright’s presentation, in which Wright (hilariously) says the following as part of a “bit.”

… there’s this whole section, I remember some white paper, um, back in 2008, had this section on how identity worked in Bitcoin.

I remember reading it… probably when I wrote it... and there was this different way of doing things …

Craig Wright Briefly Forgets He ‘Invented’ Bitcoin (#GotBitcoin?)

In April, Wright commenced legal action against those who had repeatedly called him a fraud on social media. Bitcoin podcaster Peter McCormack and Twitter-based cartoon space-cat “Hodlonaut” were the first targets.

Lawyers representing Wright later sent legal notices to Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin, Blocksteam CEO Adam Back, as well as two independent cryptocurrency news outlets.

The letters demanded recipients retract any statements that claim Wright is a fraud, and even appear in court to declare they were wrong to do so all along.

Craig Wright Briefly Forgets He ‘Invented’ Bitcoin (#GotBitcoin?)

Wright’s ordered to appear in court himself next week over a separatelawsuit lodged by the estate of Dave Kleiman, a computer security expert who (some believe) played a key role in Bitcoin‘s creation.

It’s alleged Wright stole 1.1 million BTC ($9.2 billion) from Kleiman’s estate after he passed away, and must now produce evidence of all the Bitcoin he’s ever mined — which would include at least some of that supposedly stolen cryptocurrency.

In November 2008, someone named Satoshi Nakamoto published the Bitcoin white paper. They maintained an online presence until December 2010, when they disappeared from the internet altogether. Bitcoin’s development continues without their input.

For those that may think this video might involve some deep fake tomfoolery: you can check out Wright’s “presentation” in full, direct from the source. He “forgets” that he’s Satoshi at approximately 5:00, enjoy!

Self-Proclaimed Bitcoin Creator Craig Wright Committed Fraud According To Florida Court Documents

Craig Wright, the controversial creator of Bitcoin SV claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto, could be facing jail time for fraud. Documents from a Florida court proved that Wright committed perjury, as his defense contradicts an affidavit he previously submitted to an Australian court.

Wright summoned to appear in court, documents reveal he allegedly committed fraud

Craig Wright, the chief scientist at nChain and self-proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto, shows no signs of stopping. After invoking the ire of the crypto community by suing UK podcaster Peter McCormack for libel, Wright went on to focus on a much bigger legal battle he faces in the United States.

Namely, Wright has been embroiled in a lawsuit with Ira Kleiman, brother of the late David Kleiman, who he claims helped him develop Bitcoin. Kleiman sued Wright for allegedly stealing 1.1 million BTC from W&K Info Defense Research, a company Wright and David Kleiman founded and operated.

After refusing to reveal his Bitcoin holdings and appear in front of a judge, the Southern District of Florida court ordered him to appear at mediation on Jun 18 to address the allegations against him. Wright previously filed a motion to postpone the case and be allowed to attend the mediation through video conference. The motion was rejected by the U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom.

However, the court documents also revealed that Wright has committed fraud, for which he could face up to five years in prison and various fines. According to the documents, after being accused of stealing over $11 billion worth of BTC, Wright “filed a sworn declaration that is incontrovertibly false based on an affidavit and supporting evidence he previously submitted to an Australian court.”

Wright allegedly lied about his involvement in a Florida company he and Kleiman owned

The lawsuit against Wright alleges that he and Dave Kleiman mined over 1.1 million bitcoins through their jointly owned company called W&K and that after Kleiman’s death, Wright took unlawful possession of all the bitcoins and intellectual property of the company.

After receiving a complaint from Ira Kleiman and the Kleiman estate, Wright filed a motion with an Australian court saying he had no connections to Florida or W&K. He then supported these claims with a sworn declaration stating he was never a shareholder, member, agent, employee, or representative of W&K.

But, most importantly, he swore, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States, that he’d never exercised authority or control over W&K.

However, it was found that Wright submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where he confirmed that he owned 50 percent of W&K Info Defense LLC, while Kleiman owned the other 50 percent.


Craig Wright Briefly Forgets He ‘Invented’ Bitcoin (#GotBitcoin?)


He then doubled down, saying that “W&K Info Defense LLC was an incorporated partnership” and that “all shares are held jointly.” According to the court documents, Wright also said he called a “shareholders meeting” in 2013, where he was the sole vote that nominated the director of the company.

The affidavit directly contradicts sworn statements Wright had made to the court in Florida, where he asserted that he had never been a shareholder or a member of W&K and that he never exercised any authority or control over the company.

Documents which Wright signed as the “authorized representative” of W&K were revealed, as well as multiple occasions on which he identified himself as the lead researcher of the company.

The crypto community has responded strongly to these new developments, with many coming up with further evidence showing Wright contradicting himself on various occasions. Others have come up with their own theories on why he claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto in the first place.

Craig Wright Briefly Forgets He ‘Invented’ Bitcoin (#GotBitcoin?)


Craig Wright Ordered To Personally Appear At Bitcoin Theft Mediation

Craig Wright has been ordered to appear personally at mediation to address allegations that he stole 1.1 million bitcoin (BTC) from Dave Kleiman, court documents filed on June 10 show.

The Australian entrepreneur had requested permission to appear by videoconference, arguing that physically attending the courtroom would have caused him “unjustifiable hardship.”

However, his motion was opposed by the plaintiffs, who argued that the discovery already performed so far in the case delivered “sufficient information to fairly evaluate the claims at issue.” The court sided with the plaintiffs, with Judge Beth Bloom ruling:

“Personal appearance by the parties will promote meaningful participation at mediation.”

As a result, Wright has now been ordered to attend the next mediation session on June 18.

He is accused of stealing bitcoin from the estate of Kleiman, a crypto developer who passed away in 2013. Kleiman’s family allege that up to 1.1 million BTC was taken, which would be worth just shy of $9 billion at press time.

Wright has made repeated requests to have the lawsuit dismissed, but back in December, Judge Bloom ordered that the case should proceed.

Last month, Wright filed United States copyright registrations for the Bitcoin white paper authored by Satoshi Nakamoto, attracting controversy from commentators.

Although the computer scientist has long claimed to be Nakamoto, a subsequent report by the Financial Times suggested that Wright’s registrations do not mean his claims are recognized by the U.S. government.

Craig Wright Offers New Details On Bitcoin Trust At Heart Of Billion-Dollar Lawsuit 

New details have emerged in the ongoing lawsuit in the U.S. filed last year against Craig S. Wright, the technologist who claims to be the pseudonymous creator of bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto.

A redacted declaration filing from Kleiman v. Wright surfaced today, which details Wright’s purported ownership and the trustee scheme of the Tulip Trust, which supposedly holds over one million bitcoin. According to the filing, access to the holdings of the trust requires participation of all trustees, at least one of whom he hasn’t been in contact for several years.

The court document was originally filed on May 8, and also points to the existence of a second Tulip Trust, known as Tulip Trust II.

Days before the document was filed, a federal court ordered Wright to disclose his bitcoin addresses in the ongoing lawsuit. Wright is being sued by Ira Kleiman on behalf of the estate of his brother, the late Dave Kleiman. The nChain chief scientist is accused of scheming to “seize Dave’s bitcoins and his rights to certain intellectual property associated with the bitcoin technology.”

Kleiman is seeking half of the 1.1 million bitcoins the two are said to have mined together, or its “fair market value,” as well as compensation for infringement of intellectual property. The initial complaint did not seek to ascertain whether Wright is the person behind the Nakamoto identity, stating that “it is unclear whether Craig, Dave and/or both created Bitcoin.”

According to the declaration released Thursday, the Tulip Trust consolidated the bitcoin Wright mined and purchased between 2009 and 2011.

The trust first came to public attention through a leaked document on December 9, 2015. Allegedly written in 2011 by Dave Kleiman, a forensic computer investigator and author, the document describes a trust fund containing exactly 1,100,111 bitcoin, “to be managed by at least three people but not more than seven at any time.” The document also declares the bitcoin holding is to be returned to Craig Wright on January 1, 2020.

These new developments come amid an ongoing mediation process, which as of June 18 has yielded no results — in the words of the mediator, as reported by attorney Stephen Palley, “we are at an impasse.”

As it stands, Wright is due for deposition in Florida on June 28.

Trust Details

According to Wright’s court declaration, seven trustees were named, including Craig Wright, David Kleiman, and Ms. Uyen Nguyen — whom Wright claimed he has had no contact with since 2016. That said, Kleiman was the initial, and sole, trustee before others were appointed.

Panopticrypt Pty Ltd, an Australian entity now in liquidation was also named alongside an unnamed Seychelles entity and CO1N Ltd., a U.K. entity liquidated in 2017.

“The contacts at CO1N were Dave Kleiman and Ms Nguyen, who was terminated as director on June 1, 2016. Presently, there is no one other than myself who was a contact for this entity.” Nguyen was allegedly terminated as director of CO1N in June 2016.

The final trustee listed is “the holder of PGP key IDs, which is Satoshi Nakamoto,” with Craig Wright parenthetically related.

In the past, Wright has said that the trust is encrypted using a a method called Shamir’s Secret Sharing Algorithm. The only way to access them, he’s said, is to accrue the collective private keys in order to decrypt it.

Wright complied with the directive pursuant to a court order to produce bitcoin holdings for all bitcoin Wright mined prior to December 31, 2013. The filings were subsequently sealed.

The Tulip Trust II was settled in 2014 in Seychelles with Equator Consultants listed as a trustee. Wright and his wife Ramona Watts are the primary beneficiaries. The holdings of this second trust are unknown.

Wright also hinted at an inaccessible trove of bitcoin mined between 2011 and 2013 by staff at HighSecured and Signia Enterprises under his direction, to be held on behalf of the original Tulip Trust. Wright alleges the principles of HighSecured were arrested in 2015.

Wright has claimed in the past the Tulip Trust is currently inaccessible. In the court document Wright said:

“Access to the encrypted file that contains the public addresses and their associated private keys to the Bitcoin that I mined, requires myself and combination of trustees reference in Tulip Trust I to unlock based on Shamir scheme.”

Dave Kleiman passed away in 2013. Last December, the court denied Wright’s attempt to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that he “converted at least 300,000 bitcoins upon Dave’s death and transferred them to various international trusts.”

The court filing can be found below

6/20 Filing by CoinDesk on Scribd


Updated 6-22-2019

Wright Has Not Disclosed Full Bitcoin Holdings Per Court Order, Says Plaintiff’s Representation

A new development in the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit was announced today as a member of the plaintiff’s representation disclosed that Wright has not complied with a court directive to list his bitcoin holdings prior to December 31, 2013.

A show cause hearing will follow next week, and Wright may be held in contempt of court at either the civil or criminal level.

Velve Freedman of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP the firm representing plaintiff Ira Kleiman tweeted:

Florida judge Bruce Reinhart had ordered Craig Wright, who claims to have invented the bitcoin software, to disclose his bitcoin addresses in an ongoing lawsuit filed by the estate of his former business partner, David Kleiman.

Ira Kleiman, Dave’s brother, on behalf of the Kleiman estate accused the Australian entrepreneur of scheming to seize a shared holding of bitcoin the two mined together between 2009 and 2011, as well as Kleiman’s intellectual property. The plaintiff seeks the return of half of a 1.1 million bitcoin stockpile, allegedly held in the “Tulip Trust,” which Wright claimed consolidated bitcoin he mined and purchased between 2009 and 2011.

According to a court declaration filed on May 8, Wright said seven trustees were named, including Craig Wright, David Kleiman, and Ms. Uyen Nguyen — whom Wright claimed he has had no contact with since 2016. Wright has also said in the past, “Access to the encrypted file that contains the public addresses and their associated private keys to the Bitcoin that I mined, requires myself and combination of trustees reference in Tulip Trust I to unlock based on Shamir scheme.”

In the declaration, Wright also pointed to the existence of bitcoin mined under his direction at by staff at HighSecured and Signia Enterprises. Wright said this stockpile is also inaccessible.

The existence of a previously unknown second Tulip Trust – to which Equater Consultants is named a trustee – also come to light in the court document.

It is unknown how the Federal court has ascertained the existence of bitcoin holdings not previously disclosed by Wright. A transcript of a hearing held on June 11 before Judge Reinhart is under seal, along with the bitcoin listings Wright has provided.

Stephen Palley, a lawyer who has followed the case closely but does not represent either party, said, “This is a huge pressure point in settlement negotiations which may or may not be happening.”

Negotiations between the parties reached an impasse at a mediation session held on June 18.

Neither Freedman or Palley responded to a request for comment. As it stands Wright will appear for a deposition on June 28, at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Updated 6-28-2019

Bloomberg: Craig Wright Does Not Have Access To Bitcoin Fortune

Craig Wright said that he cannot comply with a court order to provide a list of all his early bitcoin (BTC) addresses, Bloomberg reported on June 28
The Australian computer scientist and self-proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto said that he may not be able to access the coins at all.

As previously reported, the United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida issued an order on May 3 requiring Wright to produce a list of his public bitcoin addresses. Wright, however, failed to disclose his bitcoin holdings per court order.

The order was part of an ongoing case against Wright that was filed by the estate of David Kleiman. Kleiman was a cyber-security expert, whom many believe to have been one of the first developers behind bitcoin and blockchain technology.

Kleiman’s estate brought the case to court in February 2018, claiming that Wright stole hundreds of thousands of BTC worth over $5 billion after Kleiman’s death, claiming that Wright “forged a series of contracts that purported to transfer Dave’s assets to Craig and/or companies controlled by him. Craig backdated these contracts and forged Dave’s signature on them.”

Wright claims that he gave a key piece of information regarding the funds and wallets to Kleiman before his death, making it difficult to find the digital wallets or the funds they purportedly hold.

Wright maintains that he was the mysterious creator of bitcoin, going so far as to file U.S. copyright registrations for the bitcoin white paper.

Wright stated that he decided to stop working on bitcoin in 2010, adding that “I brought in Dave because he was a friend and he knew who I was and he was a forensic expert and I wanted to wipe everything I had to do with bitcoin from the public record.”

Updated 7-5-2019

Craig Wright Uses Falsified Docs To Prove Innocence In Kleiman Case 

Self-proclaimed Bitcoin (BTC) creator Craig Wright has allegedly provided fabricated court documents to prove a trust deed with his plaintiffs, as seen from documents revealed by trial lawyer Stephen Palley on Twitter on July 3.

According to Palley, the self-styled Satoshi Nakamoto has failed to prove his case by presenting court documents that Palley alleges to be fake, as they contain multiple chronological discrepancies.

Among the exhibits filed with the District Court for the Florida Southern District on July 3, there is a document submitted as proof of cooperation between Wright and the now-deceased David Kleiman, whose lawyers filed the case against Wright in February 2018. Kleiman’s lawyers accuse Wright of stealing hundreds of thousands of Bitcoin — at press time valued at over $5 billion — after Kleiman’s death in April 2013.

While the presented deed of trust document is ostensibly dated Oct. 23, 2012, the metadata of the file indicates that the document was actually created after the death of Kleiman, as Palley found. The trust document apparently uses a 2015 copyright notice related to Calibri, the Microsoft Word font, indicating that the document could not be from earlier.

Alleged falsification of trust deed documents by Craig Wright. Source: Stephen Palley

Following the apparent accusation of Wright for forging the court documents, Palley wrote:

“I mean it makes sense that the inventor of bitcoin can time travel.Your honor.”

In late June, Wright declared that he cannot comply with a court order to provide a list of all his early bitcoin addresses, claiming that he gave a key piece of information regarding the funds and wallets to Kleiman before his death.

Updated: 7-25-2019

Craig Wright’s Wife Could Testify Under Oath in Ongoing Kleiman Trial (#GotBitcoin?)

Craig Wright’s wife, Ramona Watts, has been called to appear for an examination as part of the latest developments in the ongoing Kleiman v. Wright trial.

In a letter addressed to the British Queen’s High Court, dated July 22, Judge Bruce Reinhart requested Watts testify under oath as part of an international judicial assistance. The request is made on behalf of the plaintiff, as Watts’ appearance may be relevant to court proceedings and useful to the plaintiff’s case.

Plaintiff Ira Kleiman is suing Watts’ husband for civil theft, fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of partnership duties of loyalty and care relating to a purported multi-billion dollar cache of bitcoin. Kleiman, who represents his late brother Dave Kleiman’s estate, alleges the Australian technologist unlawfully took possession of the bitcoin collectively mined by his brother and Wright.

Though the total amount of bitcoin is unknown, Kleiman believes the estate is due at least 300,000 bitcoins, and their respective forked assets.

Reinhart alleges in the document Watts, as wife and business associate to Wright, is knowledgeable to the facts of the case. She will be called to testify on non-privileged statements made by Wright regarding Kleiman, the creation of bitcoin, his mining activity, and the Tulip Trust at the “heart” of the case.

Of note is W&K Info Defense Research, a firm incorporated in 2011 by Dave Kleiman, and the firm’s former director, Uyen Nguyen. Watts will provide testimony regarding Wright’s statements that he was not involved in the firm and has lost touch with Nguyen.

The plaintiff’s council allege Wright forged documents and emails that purport Kleiman elected Nguyen to director “in an effort to facilitate [Wright’s] theft of W&K’s property,” a year after Kleiman’s death.

Also called to testify are novelist Andrew O’Hagan, who was contracted to write the The Satoshi Affair, which purports to be a biography of Satoshi Nakamoto, and Robert MacGregor, who has purchased Nakamoto’s life rights.

O’Hagan is said to have had close access to Wright for six months, and is compelled to submit his notes, “many hours of tape” interviews and drafts relating to the book.

The witnesses will appear in Boies Schiller Flexner, Ira’s council’s, office in London at an agreed upon date.

Updated: 8-27-2019

Craig Wright: Kleiman Estate Will Now Dump $2 Billion in Bitcoin (#GotBitcoin?)

Bitcoin (BTC) prices could face fresh volatility after Craig Wright was ordered to pay 500,000 BTC to the brother of Dave Kleiman, his late business partner.

The payout — worth more than $5 billion at the time of writing — could attract an estate tax rate of 40%, which Kleiman’s estate would have to pay.

There are now fears that 200,000 coins could be dumped on the market in order to settle $2 billion bill, potentially causing a crash.

In an interview with fintech magazine Modern Consensus, Wright said he would comply with the court order, which follows allegations that he stole hundreds of thousands of BTC from Dave Kleiman.
Based on thin Ayre?

The ruling brings to a head a debacle which has dragged on for years and involved an increasing number of third parties far removed from Wright and his entourage.

In the face of multiple claims of fraud on social media, Wright even began suing those who disagreed with his alleged proof that he created Bitcoin.

Those lawsuits came to nothing, while this week, those publicly supporting Wright’s original statements evaporated.

Only Calvin Ayre, a major supporter of Wright’s favored altcoin Bitcoin SV (BSV), continued to argue he was Nakamoto.

“The judge ruled Craig and Dave are Satoshi. This is not accurate but its enough to have Craig accurately be referred to as Satoshi as he is saying and this will likely be appealed,” he wrote on Twitter.

Large numbers of responses then immediately dismissed the comments. United Kingdom-based entrepreneur Alistair Milne described Ayre’s words as flat-out lies.

“The US court *did NOT* rule that Wright/Kleiman were Satoshi Nakamoto. Anyone telling you otherwise is either insane or a liar,” he tweeted.

In what will be a source of personal satisfaction to Wright’s previous legal victims, meanwhile, one person present at the hearing concluded it was now not libellous to label him a fraud.

Citing testimony from Kleiman, Katie Ananina wrote in a digest of the proceedings:

“I now know the way to say #craigwrightisafraud and don’t get in trouble. It’s been said in a Federal Court.”

Ananina noted the judge also threw out Wright’s claim he would be able to prove he had access to the private keys bolstering his Nakamoto claim by January 2020.

Read the follow-up to this story here.

Updated: 8-29-2019

Calvin Ayre Falsely Claims Court Ruled Craig Wright Invented Bitcoin

Bitcoin SV (BSV) proponent Calvin Ayre has come under fire once again after erroneously claiming that a court ruled Craig Wright created Bitcoin (BTC).

Ayre: Judge Just Ruled Wright Created Bitcoin

In a tweet on Aug. 28, Ayre said the judge presiding over Wright’s recent court case decided he was Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto.

Its nice timing to be out at the same time as Craig gets the Satoshi coins out of tulip trust. Also good timing with Judge just ruling Craig is Satoshi,” the tweet stated.

Wright was in court over alleged theft of $10 billion worth of BTC. The case concluded this week, with Wright now obliged to pay the plaintiff, the estate of former business partner Dave Kleiman, half of the fortune.

Both Wright and Ayre tout BSV as the true version of Bitcoin, and have tirelessly promoted the cryptocurrency, which has faced multiple technical and publicity difficulties in its 10-month history.

No Basis In Official Judgment

Following Wright’s downfall, Ayre remained an increasingly lone voice supporting him, but his latest claims were met by immediate pushback.

Twitter users referenced the text of the court judgment, which emphatically denies making a ruling over whether Wright is or is not Nakamoto. The text reads:

First, the Court is not required to decide, and does not decide, whether Defendant Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor of the Bitcoin cybercurrency.

It is thus unclear how Ayre arrived at his claim, which he made while advertising an upcoming book about Wright’s recent difficulties.

As Cointelegraph reported, questions now focus on how markets will cope with a $2 billion tax bill for Wright’s penalty.

Separate speculation focuses on Wright’s ability to pay at all, and if he has access to the private keys to the 500,000 BTC stash. The court has accepted Wright’s claim that he had access to the coins, with the document noting:

“The Court also is not required to decide, and does not decide, how much bitcoin, if any, Dr. Wright controls today. […] the Court accepts Dr. Wright’s representation that he controlled (directly or indirectly) some bitcoin on December 31, 2013, and that he continues to control some today.”

Updated: 8-30-2019

Kleiman Files — Craig Wright Controversy Gets Complicated 

With each passing day, Craig S. Wright’s reputation continues to take a bigger beating. This time around, a Florida court has found the self-proclaimed inventor of Bitcoin (BTC) to be guilty of not only submitting false documents as part of an earlier testimony but also lying about a legal dispute (related to the estate of his former partner, David Kleiman) to the United States justice system.

The presiding judge, Bruce Reinhart, concluded the latest hearing by ordering Wright to surrender more than $4 billion worth of cryptocurrency in favor of Kleiman’s estate. The assets in question comprise of a whopping 500K BTC as well as half of all the intellectual property that has ever been created by Wright. Moreover, Wright has been ordered by Judge Reinhart to turn over documents in which it is claimed that he had unlawfully seized digital assets from Kleiman.

It now remains to be seen whether Wright is able to comply with the order and actually deliver the BTC to Kleiman’s estate. There is a doubt that arises here because Wright has stated in his latest testimony that he is not aware of where the crypto in question is being stored, nor is he absolutely sure if he even has access to any of these external digital storage entities.
Satoshi identity still a mystery?

Wright has been claiming for a long time that he is, in fact, Satoshi Nakamoto — the pseudonymous author of Bitcoin’s source code and its white paper, a document that lays out the core design for the currency’s digital ecosystem.

In recent times, when called a fraud, Wright has resorted to suing all those who disagree with the notion that he is the mastermind behind Bitcoin. And even though all of his lawsuits have amounted to almost nothing in the end, the people who have publicly showcased their support for Wright over the years seem to be disappearing rapidly.

In addition to this, a number of established crypto experts and enthusiasts seem to be of the opinion that Wright’s recent submission of false documents to the Florida court could be the final straw as far as his “I am Satoshi” claims go. Cointelegraph reached out to Craig Russo, a crypto investor and owner of Peer — a Boston-based startup behind the popular media outlet SludgeFeed, to get a better understanding of the matter. Russo believes that Wright needs to provide more tangible evidence in order to support his outlandish claims, saying:

“The false documents definitely do not help his credibility. I think the mystery of who exactly made up “Satoshi” will continue to unravel into the future.”

Similarly, Christopher Inks, the founder and CEO of TexasWest Capital — a crypto research trading firm — also believes that, while there is a slim possibility that Wright might be Satoshi, he is making his claims harder to believe — especially with all of the recent stories that have emerged in relation to him. Inks added in a statement to Cointelegraph:

“There is no doubt that he is a polarizing individual and that may simply be the result of his intelligence. Many highly intelligent people have difficulty interacting in a positive way with everyone else. But should people believe him just because he says so?”

Will The Drama Hurt The Market?

Wright is of the belief that in the wake of the aforementioned court ruling, the crypto market could soon be flooded with billions of dollars worth of Bitcoin. However, as mentioned earlier, it appears as though Wright might not have access to the private keys associated with the various digital wallets containing the BTC.

In this regard, it is worth recalling that in an earlier testimony, Wright had said that he had passed on a key piece of information to Kleiman before his demise back in 2013. As a result of his death, Wright thinks it will be extremely hard for him (or anyone else for that matter) to track down the storage entities holding the crypto. With that being said, the self-proclaimed inventor of Bitcoin did concede the following in a recent email to his spokesperson, Ed Pownall:

“The courts ruled that Ira (Kleiman, brother of Dave Kleiman) inherited those billions. Now he has to pay estate tax on that if he wants it.”

As a result of these recent developments, the market at large is now replete with FUD related to an impending market crash that might happen because of BTC being liquidated or moved around.

Cointelegraph has reached out to CryptoYoda, an independent crypto analyst and trader, with over 200K followers on Twitter. In regard to the matter, he stated that he is highly doubtful that Wright really has access to the legacy coins, so all of the lingering concerns regarding a potential sell-off can be set aside for the time being.

However, he did add that the situation will need to be immediately reevaluated if Wright or any other third-party enters the private key associated with the legacy wallet. This, in CryptoYoda’s opinion, will most likely not be the case anytime in the near future. He added:

“As long as no coins are being moved, there is no reason to speculate about a potential selloff imho. Should coins from the legacy wallet move eventually, then we at least have proper grounds for discussion.”
However, since Judge Reinhart passed his verdict a few days back, Bitcoin’s price has witnessed some serious negative action (particularly on Aug. 29).

Over the course of the past 24 hours, the price of a single BTC has slid from $10,251 to briefly dipping under $9,400 — with the market sentiment at large appearing to be bearish. Providing his insights on the issue, Russo pointed out:

“I think anytime that a whale investor needs to unload Bitcoin in the open market, for whatever reason, it adds a downward pressure on price. However, I think the risk is relatively low that Wright actually has access to those coins but savvy investors should definitely monitor the situation.”

Additionally, Cointelegraph also got in touch with Daniel Kelman — a New York-based lawyer, creditor of Mt. Gox. In his opinion, only Bitcoin SV (BSV) — a digital currency that has Wright as its most vociferous proponent — will be affected by these recent developments, with traders most likely dumping the asset in the near future.

“I don’t see a reason for it to affect the rest of the market, possibly sell orders of BSV into other cryptos push other prices higher. Wright doesn’t have a stack of BTC to sell off, which the market now knows for sure.”

Looking Ahead… What Happens Now?

While there seems to be a lot of drama surrounding the Kleiman-Wright case right now, it appears as though a lot of this talk is confined primarily to the realm of social media. In this regard, the upcoming events (such as the launch of Bakkt’s Bitcoin futures products as well as other institutional investment offerings) are more likely to have a bigger impact on the cryptosphere.

In fact, Russo sees the market continuing its consolidation period for the foreseeable future, despite many people calling for Bitcoin to fill the CME futures gap at around $8,500. According to Russo, “My guess is that the number either gets front-ran or we fall rapidly through it to find support below.”

On the subject of Wright’s future obligations and what happens to him next (from a legal standpoint), Kelman stated unequivocally that there absolutely exists a possibility of the Australian national going to jail for his actions. In his opinion, even though Judge Reinhart did not find Wright’s conduct being at the level of criminal contempt, he ended his order by stating:

“Dr. Wright intentionally submitted fraudulent documents to the Court, obstructed a judicial proceeding, and gave perjurious testimony.”

In layman’s terms, Reinhart basically called Wright a fraud. It now remains to be seen whether he refers the matter to the U.S. attorney’s office, which would see a new case being initiated against the maligned computer scientist. Expounding his thoughts on the matter, Kelman added:

“Reinhart may now refer the matter to the US Attorney’s office and a case can be brought against Wright from there. Federal judges choose their words carefully. Using words like ‘perjurious testimony’ and ‘intentionally submitting fraudulent documents’ indicates how serious this is, those are felonies. I’d be surprised if this isn’t followed up on by prosecutors.“

It now remains to be seen how retail trader fears of a rumored $2 billion crypto dump (i.e., because of a potential 40% tax on the 500K BTC in question) could play out. On top of that, it will also be interesting to see how Kleiman’s estate seeks to limit their incoming tax hit if indeed it gets hold of the Bitcoins. In this regard, one option could be that the tax be paid out in installments — which would be extremely advantageous for the estate from an economic standpoint — especially if Bitcoin’s value were to continue surging over the next few years.

Updated: 9-18-2019

Craig Wright’s Hidden Treasures: Court Order To Unlock The Tulip Trust 

Since early 2018, Craig Wright, a controversial Australian computer scientist and tech entrepreneur, has been the defendant in a lawsuit filed on behalf of the estate of Dave Kleiman, Wright’s late business partner. The claim alleged that following Kleiman’s death in 2013, Wright unlawfully appropriated more than a million Bitcoin (BTC) that the duo had mined jointly in the early years of the cryptocurrency, as well as some related intellectual property. After a recent resolution, the case seems to be decided — although many important questions remain unanswered.

Missing Keys And Bonded Couriers

In late August, after months of litigation, Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart of the Southern District of Florida ruled in favor of the Kleiman estate, which is represented by Dave’s brother Ira.

In his decision, Reinhart reproached Wright, saying that “Dr. Wright’s demeanor did not impress me as someone who was telling the truth,” and also admonished the defendant for engaging in a “willful and bad faith pattern of obstructive behavior, including submitting incomplete or deceptive pleadings, filing a false declaration, knowingly producing a fraudulent trust document, and giving perjurious testimony at the evidentiary hearing.”

The judge didn’t buy Wright’s version of the story. The Australian claimed that the partnership between Dave Kleiman and himself, acting under the alias Satoshi Nakamoto, was the entity responsible for inventing Bitcoin. Having realized at some point that digital currency had come to be used predominantly for funding illicit activity, Wright decided to distance himself from the project.

Wright maintains that he and Kleiman put some 1 million BTC they’d mined together into what they called the “Tulip Trust,” a storage unit secured by the two men’s cryptographic signatures.

Although Wright lost access to the funds when Kleiman died, the self-proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto says that the missing keys needed to unlock the trust will be somehow delivered to him by a bonded courier. The distrustful judge responded with a literary allusion: “Apparently, dead men tell no tales, but they (perhaps) send bonded couriers.”

Wright and his counsels pledged to challenge the order, although they had to request a two-week extension of the time afforded to file the motion. At the same time, Wright argued that, should Ira end up with half of the Tulip Trust, he will need to sell a huge chunk of it in order to be able to pay a 40% estate tax, which would inevitably tank the Bitcoin market.

The markets, however, didn’t seem particularly intimidated, as no major price movements occurred in the days following Wright’s statement. Ryan Selkis, CEO of crypto research firm Messari, told Bloomberg he was not concerned about Wright transferring BTC to Ira Kleiman because he didn’t think Wright had any to transfer. RT host Max Keiser even predicted that the realization of Wright lacking the money he is ordered to pay would drive BTC price steeply upward.

On Sept. 17, both sides filed a joint motion to extend all discovery and case deadlines by 30 more days to facilitate “good faith settlement discussions” in which they have stated to be engaged. The parties claim in the document that they are currently finalizing “all relevant terms,” and that pushing back all the deadlines — including the trial — would help them reach a final, binding settlement agreement.

Strategic Narratives

Some crypto and tech publications were quick to report that the court ordered Wright to pay over $5 billion worth of Bitcoin to Keliman’s estate, which is, in fact, not exactly what Reinhart had ruled. Indeed, Reinhart’s order establishes that all Bitcoin mined by the Kleiman-Wright partnership between 2009 and 2013 — as well as whatever Bitcoin-related intellectual property the duo had produced throughout the same period — belongs to Wright and Kleiman’s heirs in equal parts.

However, the judge never produced a definitive determination on how much Bitcoin is to be divvied up or what specific intellectual property the ruling applies to. This does not come across as surprising, given that the court has been unable to establish these details to date.

There are two reasons why the “$5 billion” language has gained so much traction in the cryptosphere. One is that the original claim filed with the U.S. District Court mentioned “hundreds of thousands of bitcoin,” the ownership of which was contested. When the claim was filed in 2018, the valuation of Kleiman’s half of the alleged Tulip Trust exceeded $5 billion, which remains its value today. What helped to further engrave the figure in the crypto community’s collective mind is Wright’s interview to Modern Consensus.

In a conversation with an overly sympathetic interviewer, Wright stated: “The judge ordered me to send just under 500,000 BTC over to Ira. Let’s see what it does to the market. I wouldn’t have tanked the market. I’m nice.” He mentioned the figure “5 billion” several times, even complaining how the newfound knowledge of their family’s enormous wealth would ruin his children’s lives.

Granted, it is extremely unlikely that any litigation of this kind would passingly establish the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. The judge in the present case explicitly stated: “First, the Court is not required to decide, and does not decide, whether Defendant Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor of the Bitcoin cybercurrency.” Yet, Wright seems to be leveraging the case to promote his “I am Satoshi” narrative.

It is a widespread belief that the massive pool of Bitcoin that was mined in 2009 and 2010 and has since remained dormant belongs to the founding father of cryptocurrency. The amount of digital currency stored in the Tulip Trust (1.1 million BTC) coupled with Wright’s description of the timeline of its emergence loosely correspond with the semi-mythical story of the original whale stash. According to crypto researcher Sergio Lerner, some 980,000 of the first Bitcoins to be mined can be traced back to a single mining entity, and they have never been moved.

The court’s success in linking Wright’s identity to the original trove of more than a million digital coins would effectively validate him as the inventor of Bitcoin. It would also mean that Wright has to pay some $5 billion to Ira Kleiman — who, in turn, would have to flood the market with a significant share of the Bitcoin obtained in order to pay a 40% estate tax.

Wright’s alleged, temporary lack of access to the so-called “Satoshi funds” is his excuse for why he still hasn‘t shown the world this solid evidence to support his claims and why he has yet been unable to comply with the court order. It is shaky ground indeed, and Wright can’t stay there forever.

What Comes Next

It looks like the case has been effectively decided on its merits: Wright will owe Dave Kleiman’s estate half of what they jointly produced. Even though Wright’s side has pledged to appeal the latest ruling, it seems all but impossible that any judge would ever overturn it without shocking new evidence. As blockchain lawyer Stephen Palley shared with the Financial Times: “I view this case as being over. When you have two federal judges that have said you’re a ducking [sic] liar, you’re not going to win,” although he added that the case may still linger for six months to a year.

Many intriguing side developments, however, are likely to emerge in the coming months. A lot hinges on how much of Wright’s Bitcoin (if any at all) officials will be able to discover. At this point, since the defendant failed to produce any BTC addresses (save for a few unverified ones that were produced under a protective order), the court does not possess much information on his assets.

As the civil process ensues, there will likely be more discovery requests — and even if Wright’s counsels manage to buy some time appealing the decision, the funds locked up in the Tulip Trust should finally become available in early 2020, according to Wright himself.
Once the Bitcoin jointly mined by Wright and Kleiman is located, the Australian will have to give up half of it to his late business partner’s estate. If he refuses to honor the court order, Wright may face some tangible consequences, as Layla Tabatabaie, senior consultant at the blockchain PR firm Wachsman, stated to Cointelegraph:

“Wright would be found in contempt of court, and the court may impose imprisonment or monetary fines in fiat currency against him. Being held in civil contempt of court could actually be worse than being held in criminal contempt, because you aren’t afforded the same constitutional rights as a criminal defendant. Barring any egregious actions by Wright, it is far more likely that the punishment would begin with mounting monetary fines.”

In other words, failing to produce the Bitcoin addresses in which his and Kleiman’s funds are stored will, at some point, become costly for Wright.

Another consequential detail that makes this case interesting to follow and could render it a landmark case for the crypto industry is how exactly the court will go about calculating the amount of money to be paid to the plaintiff and whether repayment will be in coin or fiat.

One way to look for directions on what could happen is to examine the comparable cases that involve digital securities. The Securities
and Exchange Commission has, on several occasions, ordered rescission to wronged crypto investors as part of a securities settlement. However, according to Dror Futter, a partner at law firm Rimon P.C., the regulator has not addressed this question.

So, as there is no guidance as to how such payouts are to be executed — whether in fiat or crypto, and if in crypto, at what exchange rate — the next few months should bring more certainty to the many undefined variables in this equation.

Updated: 11-3-2019

Craig Wright Says He Has No Funds For Settlement In Kleiman Case

The latest court documents in the David Kleinman versus Craig Wright case filed on Nov. 1 reveal that Wright — the self-proclaimed Bitcoin (BTC) creator Satoshi Nakamoto — informed the plaintiff that he could not finance a 500,000 BTC ($4.5 billion) settlement.

Given that the case was apparently reaching a resolution with the agreement, the plaintiff stopped active litigation and focused on settlement, joining Wright’s requests to extend the deadline into late October. Then Wright allegedly broke the settlement agreement:

“On October 30, without any advance notice, Plaintiffs were informed Craig could no longer finance the settlement and was ‘breaking’ the non-binding settlement agreement.”

The given document is the plaintiff’s expedited motion to depose out of state witness. The deposition explains that in September the plaintiffs discussed a settlement with Wright, noting that his claims implied he had the means to cover the costs.

A Crucial Deposition

Therefore, because Wright broke the settlement agreement, the plaintiffs resumed preparing for a trial.

As part of the process, they contacted the chief financial officer of Wright’s companies in 2013 and 2012, James Wilson, “during which Dave was alive and Craig alleges he sold Dave interest in his companies in exchange for a fortune of Bitcoin.”

On Oct. 31, Wilson told the council that he will be in the United States, in Washington D.C., and available for testimony on Nov. 8. The defense counsel, on the other hand, informed that they were not intentioned to consent to the deposition at the aforementioned date. The plaintiff of the document explains:

“Under the Local Rules of this District, parties must have 7-days notice for a deposition in Florida, but 14-days notice for an out of state deposition.”

For this reason, the plaintiff requested that the defendant and Wilson are given permission to attend the meeting via video conference and that the deposition is completed in under 14 days — earlier than required by local rules depending on court approval.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs “respectfully request that the Court allow them to depose Mr. Wilson on November 8, 2019 in Washington D.C. on condition they provide Defense counsel with the ability to attend the deposition via video link,” the document reads.

As Cointelegraph reported in mid-October, Wright has asserted that Satoshi Nakamoto, the author of the Bitcoin white paper, plagiarized him.

According to a court document filed in the Southern District of Florida Oct. 30, Wright pulled out of the settlement agreement in which he would forfeit half his intellectual property and bitcoin mined prior to 2014. With the settlement broken, trial motions are now back on.

The document was filed by Kleiman’s counsel to set a date to depose an out-of-state witness.

Ira Kleiman brought the charges against Wright in 2018 on behalf of his deceased brother’s estate. Kleiman alleges Wright manipulated business documents, emails and other correspondence to defraud the estate.

Wright was sanctioned in late August, after being found in contempt of court by Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart for failing to disclose a complete list of his bitcoin addresses, reportedly amounting to 1.1 million bitcoin.

During the hearing, Wright claimed his bitcoin was inaccessible due to his former business partner David Kleiman’s death as well as a complicated encryption scheme. The arguments were found to be inconsistent and in bad faith.

“These discussions began at Craig’s request and due to the fact that Craig represented he had the means to finance a settlement,” Velvel Freedman, member of the prosecution and partner at Roche Freedman, said in the filing.

Wright allegedly reneged on the non-binding agreement “without notice.”

Earlier, just days after the sanction was levied, Wright requested additional time to challenge the judge’s court order due to the approach of Hurricane Dorian.

Kleiman is represented by Kyle Roche and Velvel Freedman of Roche Freedman LLP, while Wright is represented by Rivero Mestre LLP.

The trial date is set for March 30, 2020.

Updated: 11-9-2019

Tether Supports Peter McCormack’s Defense Against Craig Wright.

Leading stablecoin operator Tether has announced it will support crypto podcaster Peter McCormack in a lawsuit against self-proclaimed Bitcoin (BTC) creator Craig Wright.

General counsel for Tether and cryptocurrency exchange Bitfinex, Stuart Hoegner, revealed on Nov. 8 that Tether also rejects Wright’s claims of being Satoshi Nakamoto. He explained:
“Wright has had myriad opportunities to prove that he is Satoshi and has not definitively done so.”

As Cointelegraph reported in April, Bitcoin SV (BSV) proponent Craig Wright filed a libel claim against McCormack over him accusing Wright of fraud and falsely claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin. The move by Wright’s legal team also resulted in Binance delisting BSV in April alongside other exchanges including Kraken and Shapeshift.
Tether joins the “long game” against Wright

Hoegner says that Tether “stands behind” McCormack in his defense against Wright. Hoegner suggests that the support provided goes beyond just words, though the lawyer did not clarify exactly what kind of support McCormack will receive:

“Litigation can be drawn-out and expensive, but we are committed to the long game. We admire Peter’s conviction and are humbled to support his defense against what we see as frivolous and vexatious litigation.”

Wright is also involved in other legal disputes albeit as defendant in another legal case filed by former business partner David Kleinman. As Cointelegraph reported, court documents filed on Nov. 1 revealed that Wright could not finance a 500,000 BTC ($4.4 billion) settlement in the case.



Go back

Leave a Reply