4 ms·

UK court has ruled Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto

11 points by Anon84 5y ago

rvz 5y ago
Tell him to prove that he should send 1 BTC to the wallet that mined the genesis block and take exactly 1 BTC out of it. To Downvoters: Do you have any better ideas on how to prove that this random person is Satoshi Nakamoto then? Or do you take his word for it?
tsujp 5y ago
This was won by default since Cobra did not show. This is also a copyright claim on the authorship of the Bitcoin whitepaper. I don't think this represents much other than "the defendant didn't show, so you win by default."
LatteLazy 5y ago
>Wright won the copyright-infringement case he brought by default, after the website's anonymous founder, known as Cobra, decided not to speak in his defense in the proceedings in London. ... >Wright was granted permission to take the operator of Bitcoin.org to court in April, even though the defendant's name and address were unknown. So it's a pretty hollow "ruling".
oh_sigh 5y ago
So you can be declared the author of a work if you sue someone for copyright infringement and they don't respond?
- ekianjo 5y ago
  How does that work for dead authors? You can grab copyrights by default?
zepto 5y ago
Wait till he gets a tax bill.
mrkramer 5y ago
I think after all this years Satoshi lost access to his wallet and to his mined bitcoins so if somebody wants to prove he or she is Satoshi s/he will need to do it differently. Satoshi's bitcoins won't be moving anytime soon.
jaimehrubiks 5y ago
I would pay him in btc to Satoshi's original address
beschizza 5y ago
The court did not rule that Craig Wright is Satoshi, as far as I can tell. The story linked to doesn't claim this (though it perhaps did in an earlier revision or headline) It returned a default judgment on Craig Wright's copyright claim on the bitcoin white paper after a site hosting it chose not to defend itself in court. Wright presumably shopped the forum with this outcome in mind: the U.K. is expensive to fight lawsuits in and bitcoin.org and its operators are beyond U.K. jurisdiction, so there was little incentive to fight the claim in the first place. All the coverage saying the site was "forced to remove the paper" is wrong too: it's still there. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

11 points by Anon84 5y ago

rvz 5y ago

Tell him to prove that he should send 1 BTC to the wallet that mined the genesis block and take exactly 1 BTC out of it. To Downvoters: Do you have any better ideas on how to prove that this random person is Satoshi Nakamoto then? Or do you take his word for it?

tsujp 5y ago

This was won by default since Cobra did not show. This is also a copyright claim on the authorship of the Bitcoin whitepaper. I don't think this represents much other than "the defendant didn't show, so you win by default."

LatteLazy 5y ago

>Wright won the copyright-infringement case he brought by default, after the website's anonymous founder, known as Cobra, decided not to speak in his defense in the proceedings in London. ... >Wright was granted permission to take the operator of Bitcoin.org to court in April, even though the defendant's name and address were unknown. So it's a pretty hollow "ruling".

oh_sigh 5y ago

So you can be declared the author of a work if you sue someone for copyright infringement and they don't respond?

ekianjo 5y ago
How does that work for dead authors? You can grab copyrights by default?

zepto 5y ago

Wait till he gets a tax bill.

mrkramer 5y ago

I think after all this years Satoshi lost access to his wallet and to his mined bitcoins so if somebody wants to prove he or she is Satoshi s/he will need to do it differently. Satoshi's bitcoins won't be moving anytime soon.

jaimehrubiks 5y ago

I would pay him in btc to Satoshi's original address

beschizza 5y ago

The court did not rule that Craig Wright is Satoshi, as far as I can tell. The story linked to doesn't claim this (though it perhaps did in an earlier revision or headline) It returned a default judgment on Craig Wright's copyright claim on the bitcoin white paper after a site hosting it chose not to defend itself in court. Wright presumably shopped the forum with this outcome in mind: the U.K. is expensive to fight lawsuits in and bitcoin.org and its operators are beyond U.K. jurisdiction, so there was little incentive to fight the claim in the first place. All the coverage saying the site was "forced to remove the paper" is wrong too: it's still there. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf