Quote from: nullius on February 10, 2020, 07:31:22 PM

Unless there is something that I missed here, I doubt that Craig Wright has access to the 1Feex private key. Lets lather up with falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, and shave down the following with Occams Razor:

To damn all the more by understatement, CSW has a known history (!) of claiming possession of private keys which, in fact, he does not possess. What evidence do we have that his 1Fee private key isnt just like the Tulip briefcase-load of Satoshi private keys being handled by an action-movie secret-agent courier?
Anybody who actually stole almost EIGHTY THOUSAND BITCOINS (!) should damn well know to never associate himself with that his stash of loot in a document filed with a court (!!). Would a bank robber point to his stolen sacks of cash in a court filing?
To my knowledge, there is no evidence that CSW has any advanced hacking skills (or even a competent understanding of how Bitcoin works). Is there any evidence that he is concealing a keen technical intelligence behind his shrewd techno-clown showman swindle?
The 1Feex address is a longtime popular mystery, and most people have no idea what it is (2014-12-28: The only mention of Gox in that four-page thread, with no mention of the hack: The 1Fee address is probably an MT Gox address although there is no direct evidence, just circumstantial.). Yes, I know of later-discussed evidence in various places. But try web-searching the address by itself, with no mention of Gox; you will find endless pages of social media speculation and fantasy completely unrelated to Mt. Gox.

CSW could have simply picked that address the way almost everybody else finds it: Looking at the richlists. Faketoshi Classic: Hey, I need me something to claim as collateral... hmmm, lets see: What Bitcoin address has lots of money just sitting there?
Most lawyers and most courts are ignorant of technologyand you must multiply that factor a thousandfold for anything pertaining to Bitcoin in 2013! It would be much easier to fool them than to fool (or fool) Gavin; and its unlikely that anybody would even keep an eye on the address to see if funds moved later. A career scammer would know this. It is just the type of human vulnerability that he exploits daily.
If, as I suspect, Faketoshi may be on a leash being held by whomever I suspect to have compromised Gavin, whoever wants efficient, covert means to disrupt Bitcoin. And if you want to shave away whomever, just consider that greedy, Bitcoin-hating scammer CSW has probably heard of a short.

Regardless of the difficulty that the 1Fee possessor may have in recovering spendable money from it, anybody with private key to that address could wreak at least short-term havoc on the Bitcoin marketnot merely in terms of the direct economic effect of only eighty thousand bitcoins, but much moreso through the FUD news headlines that could be generated. Nuff said?

Whereas a real blackhat would may not want to disrupt the Bitcoin market that way, if he anyway has plenty of spending money from other hacks. Why? For better or for worse, the you shall protect Bitcoin aspect of the Social Phenomenon applies to blackhats, tooat least to some degree. I think to myself, if I were an intelligent blackhat acting only from rational self-interest, what would I do with 1Fee? Probably more or less sit on it as my cold-stored nest egg and proof of ultimate pwnage, as I merrily spend all the other bitcoins that I have stolen in smaller, more easily-laundered amounts. What? Do I want to FUD the market for the money that I enjoy stealing and spending? Lulz, Im rolling in goldI will not smack the goose that lays the golden eggs.

That being said, the question of whether or not Faketoshi possesses the 1Fee key is almost irrelevant at this particular moment if he claimed possession of stolen property in a court filing. Either he essentially confessed to interesting crimes or, more likely, he committed a whole bundle of other interesting crimes rippling outward from lies told to a court. In terms of his fate, the question of whether or not he actually possesses said property is thus tantamount to asking if he shot himself in his left foot, or shot himself in his right foot.

Of course, that question is much more interesting to any Gox creditors; but that is a separate issue, and unlikely to be a big issue due to the unlikelihood that he actually has a private key which he may have only proved to his lawyer similarly to how he proved a Satoshi key to Gavin.

Quote from: bryant.coleman on February 08, 2020, 04:19:03 AM

I am 99% certain that it was Craig S Wright who masterminded the Mt Gox robbery. If this can be established,

Evidence establishing 99% certainty? I doubt it, but I want to see it proved if its true. Instant game over for Faketoshi, Nchain, and probably a few other bad characters closely associated with him. Maybe also even a bit more recovery for people who got Goxed. So... proof? (Preferably in a concise link to/quote of more discussion elsewhere.)

Quote from: xtraelv on February 07, 2020, 11:34:03 AM

It might be easier to start a lawsuit to recover the $700 million in MtGox coins that were stolen in 2011 that he claimed to have the private keys to in 2013.

Quote from: Dabs on February 07, 2020, 01:03:07 PM

If CSW claims to control the keys, then those are stolen funds and must be surrendered.

I will file that under maximum lulz: Obviously, his defence must be to prove that he deceived a court in 2013! Any which way it plays out, it would be mighty tough for people with badges to ignore.

O, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.
Sir Walter Scott

I agree that it is an interesting Occams razor and it definitely is a difficult one to defend. (If not impossible)

The facts are:
In 2011 the FIRST MtGox hack involved 79956 bitcoins being sent to 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/e67a0550848b7932d7796aeea16ab0e48a5cfe81c4e8cca2c5b03e0416850114

This was established in court evidence here: https://courts.ms.gov/appellatecourts/docket/sendPDF.php?f=dc00001_live.SCT.17.M.1681.102741.5.pdf&c=87490&a=N&s=2

In 2013 Craig Steven Wright swore an affidavit that contains another sworn statement from his lawyer that Craig Steven Wright had been shown by Craig Steven Wright that he controlled among other bitcoin addresses - 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF

This affidavit was then used to take court proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW against a company controlled by Dave Kleiman. (Who by that time had died ).

The funds had been used as collateral in business transactions to claim tax credits.

This was established in court evidence here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4462663-24-4.html#document/p5/a423127

The implication is:

1) We accept his sworn statement is true: Craig Steven Wright received and controlled the funds from the first MtGox hack in 2013.

OR:

2) We accept his sworn statement is not true: Craig Steven Wright perjured himself in the Supreme Court of NSW and claimed tax credits on the value of 79956 bitcoins that he did not control or own.

I'd love to hear his explanation.