3 ms·
(IANAL) The headline is misleading. From the court order: "the Court deems the following facts to be established for purposes of this action: (1) Dr. Wright an
by dunkelheit 7y ago
(IANAL) The headline is misleading. From the court order:
"the Court deems the following facts to be established for purposes of this action: (1) Dr. Wright and David Kleiman entered into a 50/50 partnership to develop Bitcoin intellectual property and to mine bitcoin; (2) any Bitcoin-related intellectual property developed by Dr. Wright prior to David Kleiman’s death was property of the partnership, (3) all bitcoin mined by Dr. Wright prior to David Kleiman’s death (“the partnership’s bitcoin”) was property of the partnership when mined; and (4) Plaintiffs presently retain an ownership interest in the partnership’s bitcoin, and any assets traceable to them".
Also from the order (and quoted in the article): "The Court also is not required to decide, and does not decide,how much bitcoin, if any, Dr. Wright controls today. For purposes of this proceeding, 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."
In other words, Kleiman's estate gets half of some indeterminate amount of bitcoin that Wright mined prior to Kleiman's death. Which as well may be zero, not $5bn.
- viach 7y ago> In other words, Kleiman's estate gets half of some indeterminate amount of bitcoin that Wright mined prior to Kleiman's death. Which as well may be zero, not $5bn. If Wright is in legal field, I suppose he is in some way forced to make his Bitcoin sell orders public (taxes, anti-laundering regulations etc). So that it is very much decidable, even if not how much he owns, but how much he is spending and when these particular Bitcoins were created.
- dunkelheit 7y agoAgreed, but this is something that I suppose will be determined in the future proceedings. So it is incorrect to say "Wright is ordered to hand over $5bn". To be fair, the headline states "up to $5bn" which is technically correct but still misleading because this "up to" part is not something that one notices immediately :)
- tomglynch 7y agoIn 2015 the Australian Tax Office searched Craig Wright's home due to possible tax evasion [1]. I'm not sure of the outcome though. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/09/bitcoin-founder-craig-wrights-home-raided-by-australian-police https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/09/bitcoin-f...