The moment many have been waiting for Mr Justice Mellor that presided the COPA vs Craig Wright case has now issued his full written judgement pending the conclusion of the case in early March 2024.
The written judgement comes after a surprise declaration at the last day of the trial where Mr Justice Mellor, claiming irrefutable evidence, declared Craig Wright to categorically be not Satoshi Nakamoto ending a long battle by multiple parties, to refute his claims.
“I am entirely satisfied that Dr Wright has deliberately falsified documents and given perjured evidence to this Court.”
Mr Justice Mellor
The Written Ruling
On May 20, 2024, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales delivered a landmark judgment in the case of the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) vs. Craig Steven Wright, conclusively dismissing Wright’s claim to be the elusive creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto. The court’s decision, encapsulated in the detailed judgment by Mr. Justice Mellor, meticulously dissects the evidence and arguments presented over a series of hearings, culminating in a resolute conclusion that Wright’s assertions are fraudulent.
The timing of the ruling coincidentally comes only one day after the nChain sponsored “London Blockchain Conference” is to take place. None of the people named in the court documents are expected to attend however.
Background of the Case
Craig Steven Wright, an Australian IT professional, has long claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous figure who published the Bitcoin white paper in 2008 and launched the cryptocurrency’s original software in 2009. Wright’s claim has been met with widespread skepticism, leading to various legal battles aimed at validating or disproving his assertions.
In this specific litigation, COPA sought a declaratory judgment that Wright is not the author of the Bitcoin white paper, the creator of Bitcoin, or the person behind the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym. The proceedings were extensive, involving multiple hearings, cross-examinations, and expert testimonies.
“Dr Wright presents himself as an extremely clever person. However, in my judgment, he is not nearly as clever as he thinks he is. In both his written evidence and in days of oral evidence under cross-examination, I am entirely satisfied that Dr Wright lied to this Court.”
Mr Justice Mellor
The Court’s Findings
The court’s judgment is exhaustive, covering various facets of the evidence presented. Here are the key findings that led to the rejection of Wright’s claim:
- Lack of Credible Evidence: Wright presented a series of documents purported to support his claim. However, the court found significant issues with the authenticity of these documents. Many were deemed to be forgeries, and Wright’s explanations for these forgeries were unconvincing. The judgment notes that Wright’s documents contained numerous inconsistencies and were often crudely altered.
- Contradictory Behavior: The court highlighted Wright’s contradictory behavior as indicative of his lack of credibility. Despite claiming to be Satoshi, Wright could not provide any conclusive evidence such as control over the private keys associated with early Bitcoin blocks mined by Satoshi. Instead, Wright resorted to what the judgment describes as “technobabble” and evasive tactics.
- Expert Testimonies: Expert witnesses played a crucial role in dismantling Wright’s claims. Experts in cryptocurrency, forensic document analysis, and computer science presented compelling evidence that Wright’s submissions were inconsistent with what would be expected from the true creator of Bitcoin. The judgment extensively cites these expert opinions to support its conclusions.
- Personal and Professional History: Wright’s personal and professional history was scrutinized, revealing a pattern of deceit and fabrication. The court noted instances where Wright had been previously involved in legal disputes that questioned his honesty and integrity.
- Inconsistent Technical Knowledge: The court observed that Wright’s technical knowledge, as displayed during the hearings, did not align with the expertise one would expect from the creator of Bitcoin. The judgment pointed out several technical errors and inconsistencies in Wright’s testimony that further undermined his claim.
“On multiple occasions, Dr Wright strayed far from the point in question, resorting to technobabble and irrelevant assertions in a clear attempt to obfuscate.”
Mr Justice Mellor
A Turning Point
Dr. Pieter Wuille, the fourth defendant in the BTC Core claim, provided key testimony in the COPA v. Wright trial through two comprehensive witness statements. Dr. Wuille, a prominent figure in the Bitcoin community, discovered Bitcoin in December 2010 and began contributing to the project in early 2011. By late April 2011, he had joined the maintainer team for Bitcoin and remained actively involved until July 2022, although he continues to contribute to the project.
Dr. Wuille’s engagement with Bitcoin transitioned from a personal endeavor to a professional responsibility. Since September 2014, contributing to Bitcoin has been part of his job—first with Blockstream and later, starting in 2020, with Chaincode Labs. His deep and ongoing involvement with Bitcoin provided the court with a credible and authoritative perspective on the technical and historical aspects of the project.
“It is striking that Dr Wright could not point by name to any of the ‘lot of people’ to whom he was now saying Satoshi had transferred Bitcoin.” .
Mr Justice Mellor
Key Points from Dr. Wuille’s First Witness Statement
In his first witness statement, dated October 13, 2023, Dr. Wuille detailed his early interactions with Bitcoin and his ongoing contributions. He also addressed specific technical concepts related to Bitcoin and the Bitcoin software. These insights proved instrumental during the cross-examination of Dr. Wright by Mr. Gunning KC, highlighting discrepancies in Wright’s claims.
A critical part of Dr. Wuille’s testimony focused on an incident around the time Wright posted a screenshot on his blog, purportedly showing a message signed with one of Satoshi’s keys, Dr. Wuille reviewed the post. He recalled:
‘I remember reading this blog post when it first came out, and reading articles responding to it which argued that it was not a genuine signature, and instead reused an existing, public signature by Satoshi from the bitcoin blockchain. I remember that I looked at the blog post and myself verified that it took an existing signature by Satoshi and converted it into OpenSSL format rather than the Bitcoin format so it didn’t look the same as the original. The most obvious tell is that the signature could not be identical to one that was already used. In short, the signature in the blog post proves nothing; I formed the view that it was a deliberate attempt at making an old signature look like it was a recent one.’
Dr Pieter Wuille
‘… I remember that when I reviewed the blog, it convinced me Craig Wright was not Satoshi…’
Dr. Wuille’s second witness statement, dated January 26, 2024, responded to specific points raised in Wright’s eleventh witness statement. This prompted Dr. Wuille to revisit certain contemporaneous records of Bitcoin’s development, notably the introduction of the 520-byte limit on stack elements in the Bitcoin Source Code and the disabling of specific opcodes. These technical details were again crucial in the cross-examination of Dr. Wright, revealing inaccuracies in Wright’s historical recounting of Bitcoin’s development.
“Dr Wright’s evidence about a transfer to Zooko was untrue, and his evidence in response to the fact that Mr. Bohm had received bitcoin from Satoshi was, in my judgment, yet further fabrication. These matters provide further proof that he is not Satoshi.” .
Mr Justice Mellor
Impact on the Trial
The court found Dr. Wuille’s testimony highly significant. His detailed recounting of when and how certain Bitcoin features were introduced was used to devastating effect during Dr. Wright’s cross-examination. Despite Dr. Wright’s general preparedness, he was often caught off guard by the precise and incontrovertible nature of Dr. Wuille’s evidence. This was particularly evident when Dr. Wright’s explanations conflicted with the documented history of Bitcoin’s development, as presented by Dr. Wuille.
The cumulative effect of Dr. Wuille’s testimony was to cast serious doubt on Dr. Wright’s narrative. Each topic Dr. Wuille addressed was meticulously explained, providing the court with clear, technical rebuttals to Wright’s claims. This clarity and precision were instrumental in the court’s ultimate decision, severely undermining Wright’s credibility and his claim to be the creator of Bitcoin.
The Court’s Conclusion
Mr. Justice Mellor’s judgment decisively concludes that Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto. The court issued several declarations to this effect:
- Dr. Wright is not the author of the Bitcoin white paper.
- Dr. Wright did not operate under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto from 2008 to 2011.
- Dr. Wright did not create the Bitcoin system.
- Dr. Wright is not the author of the initial versions of the Bitcoin software.
The judgment underscores that Wright’s efforts to prove his identity were not just unsuccessful but also fundamentally dishonest. It portrays Wright as a figure who, despite his technical background, engaged in a series of fraudulent activities to support his claim.
“If Dr Wright were Satoshi Nakamoto, then he ought to have been able to sign a message using the PGP key associated with Satoshi Nakamoto that was on the bitcoin.org website.”
Mr Justice Mellor
Implications of the Judgment
The court’s decision has significant implications for the community and the ongoing discourse around the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. It not only discredits Wright’s claim but also sets a legal precedent for future assertions of this nature. The meticulous dissection of evidence and the court’s reliance on expert testimonies shows the importance of scrutiny for such claims that involve key aspects of technology and intellectual property.
Now all that remains is to see how strong the referral to the CPS is and if Craig Wright will be prosecuted for his conduct during the trial.
Moreover, the judgment reinforces the notion that the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto remains a mystery, preserving the enigmatic allure that has surrounded Bitcoin since its inception.
“I am satisfied that the signature in the blog post proves nothing; it was a deliberate attempt at making an old signature look like it was a recent one.”
Mr Justice Mellor
Is This Ruling Going to Lead to a Custodial Sentence?
In short, it is very likely. In reviewing the judgment, it appears that the court did not explicitly state that Craig Wright would face criminal charges following this decision. However, Justice Mellor’s findings and statements strongly imply that Wright’s actions could potentially lead to further legal consequences.
The court found that Wright had engaged in extensive and repeated lying, fabrication, and forgery of documents. Specifically, Justice Mellor stated:
“Dr Wright lied to the Court extensively and repeatedly. Most of his lies related to the documents he had forged which purported to support his claim. All his lies and forged documents were in support of his biggest lie: his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.”
“Dr Wright has lied so much over so many years that, on certain points, it can be difficult to pinpoint what actually happened. Those difficulties do not detract from the fact that there is a very considerable body of evidence against Dr Wright being Satoshi.”
Given the court’s detailed findings of forgery and dishonesty, it is possible that these actions could lead to criminal investigations or charges by relevant authorities, although this would be a separate process from the civil trial conducted by the High Court. The court also noted that the question of further relief and potential actions would be addressed at a subsequent hearing.
Community Reaction
Hodlonaut, known for his strong stance against Wright, revived the hashtag #CraigWrightIsAFraud, emphasizing Judge Mellor’s explicit agreement in the judgment. His tweet highlights a key excerpt from the ruling: “All his lies and forged documents were in support of his biggest lie: his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.”
Arthur van Pelt, another vocal critic of Wright, shared a poignant excerpt from the judgment, noting the court’s findings on Wright’s forgeries and unreliable testimony. Dr. Pieter Wuille, a respected Bitcoin developer and one of the key witnesses in the trial, expressed gratitude to organizations and individuals who supported the legal battle.
Podcaster and Bitcoin advocate Peter McCormack delivered a blunt summary of the judgment, reiterating his longstanding criticism of Wright. Dr. Tufty Sylvestris focused on a specific paragraph from the judgment that criticizes Wright’s self-perception and credibility. By highlighting this paragraph, Dr. Tufty underscores the judgment’s personal critique of Wright, portraying him as someone whose intellectual arrogance was a key factor in his downfall.
COPA’s response highlighted the community’s unity and collective action in defending against Wright’s claims. It emphasizes the importance of the ruling in ensuring that developers can continue their work without the threat of unfounded legal actions.
Christen Ager-Hanssen, former CEO of nChain, who is named in the document 44 times, expressed satisfaction with the High Court judgment that found Craig Wright guilty of extensive lying and document forgery in his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Ager-Hanssen highlighted Judge Mellor’s conclusions that Wright’s lies, often outright falsehoods, centered around forged documents and that key witness Stefan Matthews also provided false testimony.
This ruling severely impacts Bitcoin SV and its supporters, revealing the deceit and greed of Wright, Matthews, and nChain, whose actions have caused significant harm and undermined trust in the community. Notably Ager-Hanssen seems to be one of the few people that is still implicated in legal action from nChain.
Jason Deane (Bitcoiner, author, and CEO of Renewablox) notes that all of COPA’s claims were upheld, with Wright losing on every point in a manner that was both astonishing and brutal. Justice Mellor found no evidence to support Wright’s claims and labeled Wright’s evidence as entirely fraudulent. Madden’s expert testimony was praised for its thoroughness and independence, while Wright’s own expert largely corroborated Madden’s findings. The judgment also identified Bitcoin SV (BSV) as a fork of Bitcoin, despite claims to the contrary, and repeatedly described Wright as lying, dishonest, and evasive.
Mellor was scathing of Wright’s technical abilities and strategy of using technobabble to deflect questioning. The judge dismissed Wright’s witnesses as irrelevant and unreliable, in stark contrast to the professionalism and credibility of COPA’s witnesses. Deane concludes that Wright’s legal, financial, and reputational standing is now irreparably damaged, with potential implications for his associates and BSV, which is now publicly associated with large-scale fraud.
The BSV Side
Ryan X. Charles, a former Bitcoin SV (BSV) influencer and supporter of Craig Wright, recently shared his thoughts on the High Court’s judgment against Wright. Charles’s tweet reflects a significant shift in his stance, indicating that he no longer supports Wright and acknowledges the gravity of the court’s findings.
This public denouncement by a former supporter highlights the broader impact of the judgment on the BSV community and its prominent figures. It signals a fracturing of support for Wright within the community, as individuals reassess their positions in light of the overwhelming evidence presented in court. Charles’s acknowledgment of the judgment as “just the start of Craig Wright’s downfall” suggests a belief that further repercussions, both legal and reputational, are imminent for Wright and his associates.
Charles’s comments also reflect a growing consensus within the community that the judgment marks a turning point, not just for Wright, but for anyone associated with his fraudulent claims. The expectation of “prison time” for perjury highlights the potential for significant legal ramifications, reinforcing the court’s stern stance on truth and integrity in legal proceedings.
Craig Wright has announced his intention to appeal the decision. Wright’s statement reflects a determination to continue his legal battle over the identity issue, while also expressing gratitude to his supporters.
Wright’s decision to appeal indicates that he is not ready to concede defeat despite the court’s comprehensive rejection of his claims. This move is likely aimed at both legally challenging the judgment and maintaining his narrative among his supporters. His thanks to his supporters suggest that he continues to rely on their backing as a source of strength and legitimacy.
Moreover, Wright’s commitment to ongoing projects, specifically mentioning his work with the Teranode team, signals that he intends to stay active in the crypto space. This assertion can be seen as an attempt to reassure his followers and stakeholders that, regardless of the legal setbacks, he remains dedicated to advancing his technological ventures.
This announcement is significant in the context of the broader reactions to the judgment. While many in the Bitcoin community view the court’s decision as a conclusive discrediting of Wright, his declaration to appeal and continue his work reflects a resolve to persist despite the overwhelming evidence against him. It remains to be seen how this legal appeal will unfold and whether it will garner any substantial support or lead to a different outcome.
@369bsv, who covered the trial, expressed outrage and suspicion over the timing of Justice Mellor’s judgment against Craig Wright, which was issued just before the London Blockchain Conference (an nChain event). The supporter suggests that the timing of the verdict was a deliberate act of corruption aimed at undermining Wright and BSV.
He indicates a belief that the judicial system is acting against Wright and BSV in a calculated manner. The supporter perceives the timing of the verdict as a strategic move to discredit Wright just as he was preparing to present at a significant event, thus impacting his and BSV’s public perception.
Further, the supporter’s reaction includes a reaffirmation of their faith in BSV, suggesting that perceived judicial bias only strengthens their belief in the cryptocurrency. His post reflects a deep-seated conviction that external efforts to undermine BSV are a sign of its legitimacy and potential. By purchasing more BSV, the supporter demonstrates defiance and a continued commitment to the cryptocurrency, interpreting judicial actions as evidence of its value and the threat it poses to established powers.
Finally
The High Court’s judgment in COPA vs. Wright is a critical document in the history of Bitcoin litigation. It methodically debunks Craig Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, providing a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and arguments.
This decision vindicates COPA, BTC Core, Arthur Van Pelt, Hodlonaut, Peter McCormack, Jack Dorsey, Craig Maxwell and everyone else who directly or indirectly fought against these fraudulent claims. As the Bitcoin landscape continues to evolve, this judgment stands as a testament to the importance of truth.
This article will be updated as the story unfolds.
Author Profile
- Lucy Walker covers finance, health and beauty since 2014. She has been writing for various online publications.
Latest entries
- September 12, 2024BitcoinCoinbase’s cbBTC: A Trojan Horse to Centralize Bitcoin?
- August 19, 2024NewsWirePwC Fined Record $19M for Failing to Report Suspected Fraud
- August 15, 2024BitcoinBitcoin: Solution to Centralized Financial Vulnerabilities
- August 7, 2024Stock MarketThe Systemic Fintech Meltdown of Synapse