The case of Craig Wright or a Million invented bitcoins
Kim Nilsson, co-founder of Japanese research company WizSec previously conducted an independent investigation of the collapse of the exchange Mt. Gox, in his blog reported on the indictment of Craig Wright, who called himself the Creator of bitcoin. In his opinion, the claim is doomed to failure, because, paradoxically, relies on the history provided by defendant, and at the same time discreditied his honesty.
Yesterday we reported that Wright is accused of misappropriation of the property of the late Dave Kleiman in the form of 1.1 million bitcoins, as well as the rights to his intellectual property.
Wright and Kleiman have been involved in bitcoin since the very beginning of its existence. For this reason alone, the plaintiff alleges that they, "without a doubt", have accumulated a huge number of bitcoins in the period from 2009 to 2013.
Nilsson calls the lawsuit "senseless struggle for money, never owned any of the mentioned parties." He confirms it by showing a list of bitcoin addresses, which are used as evidence in the case, but in fact not associated with Wright, nor Kleiman.
The lawsuit alleges that Wright took advantage of a grieving family did not know about the involvement of Kleiman to the main cryptocurrency and stole hundreds of thousands of bitcoins from his former partner, having signed a Treaty and forged his signature:
Since the flight to London, Craig luck and fame. In may 2016, he publicly called himself the Creator of bitcoin... He also regularly posts photos on their social networking sites showing his luxurious lifestyle. To date, Craig has not returned any of the bitcoins or intellectual property rights that belonged to Dave. The claim needs to correct this injustice.
Nilsson indicates that the claim is based on the assumption that Wright really created bitcoin, together with Kleiman. However, since it argues that Wright is so not credible (for example, once he has made so many illegal financial transactions), where we assume that it is true? Nilsson calls Wright "some guy who looked through the list of the richest bitcoin addresses, chose a few at random and said "this is mine" without providing any evidence except the clumsy document."
For everyone else, according to Nilsson, this lawsuit can be a valuable reminder about following the first rule of bitcoin:
Don't believe it. Check.
Simply put, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Fortunately, thanks to bitcoin they are very easy to provide in the form of a digital signature. And why Wright showed at least one?