I read his whole legal argument and had a good laugh. It creates so many more Occams Razors !
There are some serious flaws in the argument he creates
that could have serious implications for him if we take his word seriously.
As the sole creator of bitcoin, I own full rights to the bitcoin registry.
The system within bitcoin was launched with the full issue of all tokens. At its creation, bitcoin was formulated as a system with a set number of individual tokens defined as approximately 21 million bitcoin where each bitcoin is an arbitrary verbal representation of 100 million individual and indivisible tokens.
Bitcoin has an issuer. In January 2009, as director of companies I created in multiple jurisdictions, I issued 21 million bitcoin where each individual bitcoin is an indivisible set of 100 million tokens.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200210203809/https://medium.com/@craig_10243/ccbe22f2637eSEC security licence by the issuing companies ? Prospectus for issuance in compliance with multiple jurisdictions ? Deceiving conduct to holders, node operators and developers ?
Salaries paid to other developers (or were they working for free due to deceptive practices of their employer )?
If no salaries were paid and there was no contract then they own the copyright to their respective changes to the database ?
Why was a successor appointed ? Was disappearance a breach of "duty of care" to the database users ?
Node operators have costs but do not get rewarded - since it is a commercial transaction rather than "MIT licensed database" how much can they sue for ?
If there was an issuance of 21 million bitcoin at the start then why was CVE-2010-5139 necessary ?
On August 15 2010, it was discovered that block 74638 contained a transaction that created over 184 billion bitcoins for two different addresses. This was possible because the code used for checking transactions before including them in a block didn't account for the case of outputs so large that they overflowed when summed. A new version was published within a few hours of the discovery. The block chain had to be forked. Although many unpatched nodes continued to build on the "bad" block chain, the "good" block chain overtook it at a block height of 74691. The bad transaction no longer exists for people using the longest chain.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures#CVE-2010-5139