Quote from: pooya87 on April 25, 2021, 06:27:45 AM

Quote from: PrimeNumber7 on April 25, 2021, 02:47:54 AM

What crimes do you think CSW has committed? Making accusations in court is typically protected speech, as long as the person does not lie while under oath. Lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits can be subject to sanctions, but this will not affect the client. I don't follow CSW's story very closely, but I have followed it closely enough to conclude that I believe he is not satoshi.

You already answered your own question. Identity theft and lying under oath are two of his many crimes.

While I don't believe CSW is not satoshi (in fact I believe CSW is not satoshi), I cannot prove this to be true. The absence of proof that a statement is true is not evidence the statement is false. Similarly, attempts to fraudulently prove a statement to be true is not evidence the statement is false, although it may be evidence the person presenting the fraudulent evidence should not be trusted.

The above distinction is important because, in order to convict someone of lying under oath, the prosecution needs to prove the statement is false. There isn't anyone else claiming to be satoshi, not even satohsi Nakamoto himself. The same principle applies to identity theft. I think it is plausible that Dave Kleiman is satoshi, that CSW knows this and that no one will ever be able to prove they CSW is not satoshi, however, it is also possible that the litigation between Kleiman's estate and Wright was an effort to give credence to Wright being satoshi (I did not follow the litigation closely, nor am I aware of its outcome).

I have long suspected that satoshi no longer has access to his cryptic keys, either because he is dead, in jail, or for whatever reason lost access to his keys. I think if satoshi did have access to his keys, and is not CSW, he would have presented a signed message saying that Wright is not satoshi by now.

Quote from: Cøbra on April 25, 2021, 04:58:03 PM

Another disadvantage for them is the publicity this case is attracting. If he wins this case, he is legally recognized as Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor of Bitcoin. He's asserting he has "database rights" to the Bitcoin ledger. He asserts he owns the "Bitcoin" name. He'll inevitably claim the Satoshi coins. This is why he fights so hard to get a court to declare him as Satoshi, so he can begin enforcing these claims against exchanges, wallets, developers, etc. Obviously he will lose, but I suppose he's deluded himself and his followers into believing this is a viable strategy to take BSV to the moon. But there are just too many eyes on this, and too much money in this space to allow someone like him to even have the chance to legally assume the Satoshi moniker and associated intellectual property. The best intellectual property law firm in the UK is actively working on this whitepaper issue. He is outgunned legally.

If Wright were to actually prove he is satoshi in court in his case against you, he should be able to easily enforce any rights associated with being satoshi has (I am hesitant to believe satoshi has many rights -- see my below comment). However, if for example, Wright were to win a default judgment against you, and the court were to rule that he is in fact satoshi, he would not be able to enforce any associated rights (if this were the case, he could simply sue someone friendly to him in order to have a court rule in his favor). I think BSV has insane technical specifications, but I also think CSW probably also owns an outsized number of BSV coin via being a major miner of that coin. CSW probably doesn't own the same number of BSV coin that satoshi mined of bitcoin, but he probably has a lot of BSV. I think if CSW were to win a case against a major bitcoin figure, the price of BSV would increase a lot. I have commented before as to why CSW might win a case, and it is not because of actual merit.

In the very unlikely event that Wright was able to legitimately prove he is in fact satoshi, he very clearly should not have any rights over the bitcoin software, or the bitcoin database/ledger (commonly known as the blockchain), as satoshi's very first commit of the bitcoin software code explicitly said it was distributed under an MIT license. The whitepaper was appearently included in the original code files, but it is less explicit that the whitepaper was published under the MIT license.