3 ms·

> The controversial digital-asset entrepreneur filed a claim in a British court on Wednesday, accusing podcaster Peter McCormack of writing a libelous series of

> The controversial digital-asset entrepreneur filed a claim in a British court on Wednesday, accusing podcaster Peter McCormack of writing a libelous series of tweets about him in March and April over Wright’s claim that he developed Bitcoin under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. So does Craig Wright need to prove he's Satoshi in order to win a libel case against someone who says he's not Satoshi?

pessimizer 8y ago
Britain's libel laws are garbage, so I'm sure he doesn't.
- caprese 8y ago
  Can you tell me more about that and how to establish jurisdiction in Britain and also collect upon winning? Are judgements in Britain worthwhile, monetarily?
  - stordoff 8y ago
    Peter McCormack appears to live in the UK[1], so establishing jurisdiction is straight forward. Libel damages vary - £24,000, £40,000, to a few hundred thousand[2] - it depends on the facts of the case (though the loser will also have costs to pay). [1] https://uk.linkedin.com/in/petermccormack1 https://uk.linkedin.com/in/petermccormack1 [2] https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/food-blogger-jack-monroe-wins-24k-libel-damages-sun-columnist-katie-hopkins-over-tweets/ https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/food-blogger-jack-monroe-wins... ; https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/40000-damages-in-twitter-libel-case/5068744.article https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/40000-damages-in-twitter-li... ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Damages
littlestymaar 8y ago
I dont known, but under certain jurisdictions he could lose even if he was Satoshi and able to prove it, just because his attempt to prove he was satoshi was incredibly suspicious. But he isn't anyway, so I really hope this fraudster loses.
urbanriv 8y ago
Didn't Liberace sue a newspaper for libel when they said he was gay... and then win. I do not know why anyone gives this guy the time of day. There is a way to indisputably prove if he is satoshi and it is the one thing he will not do. It is like if I start telling everyone the Lamborghini in the parking lot is mine, and they ask me to turn it on, and I spend the next 4 years arguing that it is mine instead of just turning it on. Although maybe if I do turn it on I trigger a massive tax bill, in which case I should have never said it was mine in the first place.
- tlrobinson 8y ago
  > It is like if I start telling everyone the Lamborghini in the parking lot is mine, and they ask me to turn it on, and I spend the next 4 years arguing that it is mine instead of just turning it on. I'm not sure if you were intentionally referring to the incident where Craig Wright rented a Lamborghini and claimed it was his, but if not that's hilarious... https://twitter.com/DanDarkPill/status/1105082100372393987 https://twitter.com/DanDarkPill/status/1105082100372393987
- Lazare 8y ago
  > Didn't Liberace sue a newspaper for libel when they said he was gay... and then win. Yes. However, then as now, the truth is an absolute defence to a claim of defamation. Had they shown that Liberace was gay, they'd have won the trial. The issue was that the newspaper in question (the Mirror) never tried to claim that Liberace was actually gay; instead they tried to claim that when they wrote that he was "a deadly, winking, sniggering, snuggling, chromium-plated, scent-impregnated, luminous, quivering, giggling, fruit-flavoured, mincing, ice-covered heap of mother love" that the word "fruit" was not a reference to the then-common slang term for homosexuals, but was just, you know...a word. And that the journalist who wrote it has no idea that the slang term even existed, and in any case whatever was written was just the jounalist's opinion, and shouldn't have been interpreted as a statement of fact, since, obviously, the author didn't really think Liberace was gay. It wasn't a very good defence, and the jury didn't buy it.
- mrb 8y ago
  "trigger a massive tax bill" This shouldn't deter him from conclusively proving he is Satoshi. His mere oral claim that he is Satoshi should trigger a massive tax bill anyway. He can't both claim to the world he is Satoshi while telling his tax authority "actually I'm just lying, don't tax me".
ksaj 8y ago
The real Satoshi posted the word "nour" followed by Wright spouting off in Arabic. So now he's at least proven that he actively monitor's Satoshi's account, and can use Google Search and Google Translate to create a "coincidental" response. Real proof would have been posting in the opposite order - Craig first, followed by Satoshi. Or even easier, Satoshi could have just posted "Craig" instead of Nour. So easy... this is all such a game to play.

pessimizer 8y ago

Britain's libel laws are garbage, so I'm sure he doesn't.

caprese 8y ago
Can you tell me more about that and how to establish jurisdiction in Britain and also collect upon winning? Are judgements in Britain worthwhile, monetarily?
- stordoff 8y ago
  Peter McCormack appears to live in the UK[1], so establishing jurisdiction is straight forward. Libel damages vary - £24,000, £40,000, to a few hundred thousand[2] - it depends on the facts of the case (though the loser will also have costs to pay). [1] https://uk.linkedin.com/in/petermccormack1 https://uk.linkedin.com/in/petermccormack1 [2] https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/food-blogger-jack-monroe-wins-24k-libel-damages-sun-columnist-katie-hopkins-over-tweets/ https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/food-blogger-jack-monroe-wins... ; https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/40000-damages-in-twitter-libel-case/5068744.article https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/40000-damages-in-twitter-li... ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Damages

littlestymaar 8y ago

I dont known, but under certain jurisdictions he could lose even if he was Satoshi and able to prove it, just because his attempt to prove he was satoshi was incredibly suspicious. But he isn't anyway, so I really hope this fraudster loses.

urbanriv 8y ago

Didn't Liberace sue a newspaper for libel when they said he was gay... and then win. I do not know why anyone gives this guy the time of day. There is a way to indisputably prove if he is satoshi and it is the one thing he will not do. It is like if I start telling everyone the Lamborghini in the parking lot is mine, and they ask me to turn it on, and I spend the next 4 years arguing that it is mine instead of just turning it on. Although maybe if I do turn it on I trigger a massive tax bill, in which case I should have never said it was mine in the first place.

tlrobinson 8y ago
> It is like if I start telling everyone the Lamborghini in the parking lot is mine, and they ask me to turn it on, and I spend the next 4 years arguing that it is mine instead of just turning it on. I'm not sure if you were intentionally referring to the incident where Craig Wright rented a Lamborghini and claimed it was his, but if not that's hilarious... https://twitter.com/DanDarkPill/status/1105082100372393987 https://twitter.com/DanDarkPill/status/1105082100372393987
Lazare 8y ago
> Didn't Liberace sue a newspaper for libel when they said he was gay... and then win. Yes. However, then as now, the truth is an absolute defence to a claim of defamation. Had they shown that Liberace was gay, they'd have won the trial. The issue was that the newspaper in question (the Mirror) never tried to claim that Liberace was actually gay; instead they tried to claim that when they wrote that he was "a deadly, winking, sniggering, snuggling, chromium-plated, scent-impregnated, luminous, quivering, giggling, fruit-flavoured, mincing, ice-covered heap of mother love" that the word "fruit" was not a reference to the then-common slang term for homosexuals, but was just, you know...a word. And that the journalist who wrote it has no idea that the slang term even existed, and in any case whatever was written was just the jounalist's opinion, and shouldn't have been interpreted as a statement of fact, since, obviously, the author didn't really think Liberace was gay. It wasn't a very good defence, and the jury didn't buy it.
mrb 8y ago
"trigger a massive tax bill" This shouldn't deter him from conclusively proving he is Satoshi. His mere oral claim that he is Satoshi should trigger a massive tax bill anyway. He can't both claim to the world he is Satoshi while telling his tax authority "actually I'm just lying, don't tax me".

ksaj 8y ago

The real Satoshi posted the word "nour" followed by Wright spouting off in Arabic. So now he's at least proven that he actively monitor's Satoshi's account, and can use Google Search and Google Translate to create a "coincidental" response. Real proof would have been posting in the opposite order - Craig first, followed by Satoshi. Or even easier, Satoshi could have just posted "Craig" instead of Nour. So easy... this is all such a game to play.