[ 13 April 2021 ] Today, COPA initiated a lawsuit asking the UK High Court to declare that Mr. Craig Wright does not have copyright ownership over the Bitcoin White Paper. We stand in support of the Bitcoin developer community and the many others who've been threatened for hosting the White Paper. (https://twitter.com/opencryptoorg/status/1381642092624015360)
[ 12 April 2021 ] CSW Cult be like :-D
[ 27 February 2021 ] Fucker Craig Shit Faketoshi Plagiator, we will create millions of bitcoin projects with name in it, we modify/update/develop code, its/was/will be open source, there is nothing like "YOUR WHITEPAPER / YOUR CODE / YOUR BITCOIN BRAND NAME", we are all SATOSHI (except you) and you never stop us, so FUCK OFF! [ 26 February 2021 ] @twitter "Craig is a fucking monster" - bro monster is monster, what is he, is not he, it is it, its something should never existed in our universe, its pure zero crap with mental illnes, the sooner it dies the better for us! [ 25 February 2021 ] Oh Craig loser, please finally, can bus, car, meteorit hit you or better for you, kill yourself fucking loser! :-] - Received a new letter from Craig's lawyers. Proceedings have begun regarding the whitepaper.
They are coming for the developers, for the whitepaper, and ultimately for all of you. No fucking mercy anymore.
to the regulators @sra_solicitors (https://twitter.com/CobraBitcoin/status/1365039044967731201)
[ 24 February 2021 ] "Craig Wright begins landmark legal action to retrieve stolen coins" - Oh please you MOTHERFUCKER SHIT IDIOT LOSER WITH MENTAL PROBLEMS DIE ALREADY !!!!!!! (https://coingeek.com/craig-wright-begins-landmark-legal-action-to-retrieve-stolen-coins/) [ 24 February 2021 ] #NeverForget - Craig's #Faketoshi lifestyle[ 24 February 2021 ] Again... 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF are coins stolen from MtGox, as has been known for years. If you're going to pick a random whale address to pretend to own, maybe don't pick one that implies you're a criminal.
June 19, 2020
The 80,000 stolen MtGox bitcoins
I've recently been repeatedly asked about the theft of 80,000 BTC from MtGox in early 2011, as initially reported in a 2016 The Daily Beast article, and specifically how it relates to the address 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF. Rather than address every question individually, I will briefly summarize what's known about this in a blog post.
For a quick refresher course on the various incidents and thefts from MtGox, see my 2017 presentation on the topic. In short, there were multiple different thefts from MtGox, including but not limited to:
The main theft, responsible for over 600,000 BTC gradually stolen throughout 2011–2013, began when the hot wallet was stolen on September 11, 2011.
Approximately 2,000 BTC was stolen and the market was crashed after someone gained access to the admin account of original owner Jed McCaleb in June 2011.
A side wallet containing 300,000 BTC was stolen from Mark Karpelès' computer in May 2011 (these funds were returned by the thief).
During the handover from McCaleb to Karpelès, circa 80,000 BTC was stolen after the hot wallet was stolen from McCaleb's server on March 1, 2011.
The last item is the incident we'll cover in this post. Again, this is not the same theft as the main theft, nor is it the same as the June 2011 hack.
What we know
The first public mention of this theft was when journalists published emails from Karpelès' criminal trial in which a missing 80,000 bitcoins was being discussed by Karpelès and McCaleb (specifically, how to recover from the loss). A chat log between Karpelès and McCaleb from the time of the incident in question has also become public as part of a 2017 lawsuit against MtGox and its administrators, and details MtGox's response to the hack.
After repeated leaks of large volumes of internal accounting data from MtGox (which I have been researching and further refining over a period of several years), we can reconstruct most if not all blockchain activity for the exchange all the way back to 2010/2011, identifying deposits and withdrawals. Basic blockchain reconciliation involves matching up blockchain transactions with accounting records, and especially looking for unusually large transactions that move funds out of the wallet without accounting records.
Turns out that in all of the blockchain there is only one transaction that fits the bill, and it raises plenty of red flags:
It completely emptied the exchange's hot wallet at the time (save for a fraction of a BTC). This is extremely implausible for legitimate withdrawals, since even if any customers with that high a balance existed, they would not have known to withdraw exactly that amount.
There is no logged withdrawal corresponding to this transaction.
The change output was a reused address, something the bitcoind wallet never does (standard behavior is to use a new private key for every change output). However, this does happen when starting a second wallet instance from a copy of a wallet.dat file due to the embedded "keypool". The wallet file contains the "next" 100 keys already pregenerated, so the copy will initially use the same sequence of "new" keys as the original wallet for things like change outputs. These "overlapping" change addresses are a recognizable fingerprint of a copied/stolen wallet.dat file.
A slice of the transaction graph around the theft transaction allows us to conclude with a high certainty that this is indeed the MtGox hot wallet (all surrounding transactions are normal MtGox deposits and withdrawals), with the theft transaction standing out like a sore thumb.
The chat log between McCaleb and Karpelès is consistent with and corroborates these findings, including the fact that Karpelès identified the same transaction back in 2011. Their hack response found that the server had been hacked and rooted and had its logs wiped, though contrary to early suspicions that the hackers used the unprotected wallet RPC interface to empty the wallet, our forensic examination shows that it's more likely the hackers had full access to the files and copied the wallet.dat file.
Note: In early 2011 all wallet.dat files were still unencrypted and not protected by passwords. Encrypted wallets were introduced with Bitcoin version 0.4 released in late September 2011 — alas just slightly too late for MtGox, whose main wallet got stolen again just weeks before then...
Timestamps use block times where applicable, so take this into account, i.e. events happened in time for transactions to get included in a block with that timestamp.
During January 2011, Jed McCaleb is looking for someone to take over MtGox. One of the people he is talking to is Mark Karpelès. In anticipation of this, McCaleb moves the majority of customer funds out of the main hot wallet and into a side wallet held by himself.
In February 2011, a sale agreement between McCaleb and Karpelès is finalized, and the two begin preparing the handover, which ends up taking several months as McCaleb gradually turns over various credentials and assets.
At some point on or prior to March 1, 2011, hackers gain access to the main MtGox server. The server also hosts a WordPress installation on the same machine and database, so this is a possible entry point since WordPress has historically been notorious for its many security vulnerabilities.
Shortly before 17:30 UTC, the hackers copy the wallet.dat of the hot wallet hosted on the server. The top of the keypool (i.e. the next "new" key that will be returned) in the wallet at this time is 1GPuT4JD1yKTEGnw2csTCqSAtS3DRiTD69.
Almost two hours later, at 19:26 UTC, the hackers have loaded the stolen wallet.dat file into a wallet instance on their own machine and move all accessible bitcoins to the address 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF.
The MtGox hot wallet manages to keep running and processing withdrawals thanks to new incoming customer deposits, but it's running on fumes. The stolen bitcoins amount to about a third of all customer deposits at the time, with the rest being held by McCaleb.
On March 3, McCaleb notifies Karpelès about the theft with a now infamous "something bad happened" chat message. Karpelès helps McCaleb secure the machine and move MtGox over to new hosting.
The stolen coins remain in the same location unmoved to this day, prompting theories that the hackers may have lost the private keys.
Frequently Asked Questions
If these are stolen coins, why hasn't the MtGox trustee stated so or filed a police report?
The MtGox trustee has not published or commented on any thefts or addresses, nor are police investigations public, so the lack of public statements is not a data point either way. The theft (including the transaction/address) is known to both the trustee and Japanese police and has been discussed in both Japanese and US courts.
Can the stolen bitcoins be recovered?
Only if the thief is found and still has the private key and can be compelled to return the funds, which are all pretty big ifs. Bitcoins can't really be claimed or "confiscated" in normal terms, especially when the owner is unknown — you'd need to convince network participants to hard fork to move the coins, which is very unlikely to happen. This grim outlook for recovery probably helps explain why you don't hear the police or the trustee talk about this and other thefts.
If the MtGox data comes from leaks, how can you trust it?
I don't "trust" it. All data sources are part of the overall forensic examination, which means all assumptions are tested and all conclusions are scrutinized for inconsistencies. This degree of caution is why I can speak confidently, because I do weigh the evidence and test any hypotheses, and what I eventually report is what has stood the test of time.
How can you trust the word of Karpelès, a known scammer/liar/thief/etc.?
See above; I don't. I've evaluated his statements on this matter along with everything else and found them consistent with the evidence.
Surely this is all just circumstantial evidence?
Maybe, but it's several pieces of evidence that all consistently point in a single direction. And if we're evaluating the relative weight of the evidence, well that depends on what evidence we're weighing it against, doesn't it? To the best of my knowledge, there is only one coherent story behind these coins that is supported by any evidence at all.
[ 21 February 2021 ] Clown Craig Shit Wright supporter - Calvin Ayre[ 21 February 2021 ] Modern Examples of Crypto Crackpottery - Craig Wright’s Sartre Signature Scam (https://soatok.blog/2021/02/09/crackpot-cryptography-and-security-theater/ & https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/02/validating-satoshi-or-not/)crackpottery.mp4
[ 21 February 2021 ] "I'm peeing my pants again, Craig. What will it be this time? Rolling iceberg order, BTC $0.10, bonded courier, Bitcoin Beta starts January 11, 2009, TerraNode, fatal Segwit flaw, Sartre signing, Metanet, BSV $1200, fibre to Bagnoo, Tulip Trust, kissing Jim Morrison in the 1990s?"[ 18 February 2021 ] Protecting Bitcoin — why we’re removing BCH and BSV from OKCoin (https://blog.okcoin.com/2021/02/19/protecting-bitcoin-why-were-removing-bch-and-bsv-from-okcoin/ & https://twitter.com/hfangca/status/1362779653014921217)OKCoin CEO Hong Fang on the history of Bitcoin and why we’ve made the difficult decision to suspend trading of two BTC forks.Earlier today, we announced that trading of BSV and BCH, among several other crypto assets, will be suspended on OKCoin starting on March 1, 2021.At OKCoin, we periodically review the digital assets listed on our platform to ensure that their quality continues to meet our standards. In addition to market performance, we take a variety of factors into consideration during such reviews, including ecosystem development and ethos, network stability, quality and commitment of the developer community, liquidity, and ethical or reputational red flags. When an asset fails our periodic review, we may choose to remove it from trading on our platform.Today’s announcement was the result of our most recent asset review. However, in the spirit of transparency, there is some unique history and context specific to our decision to remove BSV and BCH, which we’d like to share with the community. Bitcoin and the birth of cryptoMore than a year ago, we started to reflect on the role OKCoin should play in the crypto ecosystem. Like many other players in the crypto space, the very creation of OKCoin in 2013 was inspired by Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin white paper and the ensuing emergence of a crypto industry.Because of Bitcoin, for the first time in human history, value can be encrypted, stored and freely transmitted without any intermediary in a global peer-to-peer network. Monetary discipline and transparency are coded and solidified by growing community consensus, secured by energy in a decentralized network, and made available to anyone anywhere via open-source software.Indeed, Bitcoin has introduced a new era of digital hard money. Individual responsibility, freedom and value is honored and celebrated. It ignites many people’s passion for crypto, ours included. Bitcoin is also an asset that serves as the foundational layer of the crypto markets.As an exchange that has been part of the market infrastructure since the early days of Bitcoin, we feel compelled to refresh and stay true to our conviction in bitcoin. Here’s a brief history of how we’ve supported and continue to support the Bitcoin ecosystem:In 2019, we began with a series of open-source developer grants (totaling $500K so far) to support Bitcoin Core developers and projects that make Bitcoin stronger. We placed a special focus on improving protocol security and reliability, increasing utility for Bitcoin adoption and growing the developer ecosystem. In December 2020, we proudly became the first U.S.-regulated exchange to list Stacks 2.0’s STX coin and enable “stacking” with BTC rewards. In doing so, we’re showing our support for the Stacks community, whose vision is to build a smart-contract layer on top of Bitcoin. In January 2021, we announced plans to integrate the Bitcoin Lightning Network on OKCoin in Q1 to facilitate smaller BTC transactions at significantly lower fees. More importantly, we want to do what we can to help grow the Lightning Network, which we believe will be critical to further Bitcoin adoption.Being a constructive contributor to the Bitcoin ecosystem is our standing commitment to our industry, and we have no intention of stopping here. Bitcoin and its hard forksPeople who have been around long enough (or have studied the history of Bitcoin) know that back in 2017 and 2018, there were heated community debates around what Bitcoin was created for, and how to address the scalability constraints in its protocol. During those debates, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin SV (BSV) went on a different path towards scaling (i.e., larger block size limits vs. Layer 2 solutions) and hard-forked out of Bitcoin.Before digging deeper into our decision around BCH and BSV, I want to clarify a few points. As a crypto exchange, we have always believed in the following:Community members have the freedom to choose their own path based on their philosophical and technical beliefs. People can agree to disagree. Bitcoin would not have been created if the early adopters were not open-minded enough to disagree with the norm. There is significant value in honoring and celebrating differences, as they bring about innovation and encourage the pursuit of truth.Regardless of our own view of certain assets, we do NOT see ourselves in a position to pick the winning horse for our customers. Instead, free markets, and free markets alone, should have the power and ability to decide the winner(s). As a platform, we just do everything we can to foster free markets.That’s basically what we’ve done with Bitcoin and its hard forks: we choose to be a neutral platform when it comes to trading the native assets of these blockchains. BTC, BSV and BCH have always been available on our platform. Our customers can choose for themselves where to put their money.It’s been interesting to observe how people have voted with their own money over the last three years. Today, BTC’s market cap has grown to almost $1 trillion, overtaking top public companies like Visa and Facebook in size. BCH and BSV, in contrast, are valued at respectively ~1.5% and ~0.5% of the original Bitcoin.At this point, it seems that the markets have cast their vote on what Bitcoin was built for. The dilemmaIn spite of BTC’s market dominance, we wouldn’t have changed our neutral practice with BSV and BCH if it were not for what happened on Jan 21, 2021. When the news hit that Craig Wright — the infamous self-proclaimed creator of Bitcoin and BSV supporter — was taking actions to enforce copyright claims on the Bitcoin white paper, we found ourselves facing a very uncomfortable dilemma.On the one hand, we continue to believe that we should let our customers make their own decision on whether or not they should invest in certain crypto assets. That belief was reinforced when we saw how people reacted to Robinhood’s suspension of GameStop stock (and several other stocks) on its platform with little communication in advance.On the other hand, we feel very disturbed by the copyright claim and threat of legal actions that Craig Wright is waging against the open-source community. Wright’s recent lawsuits against websites hosting the Bitcoin white paper are part of a long historical chain of problematic legal actions surrounding his entirely unproven claim to be the creator of the original cryptocurrency.Bitcoin has never been owned or controlled by any individual or entity, nor should it ever be. Bitcoin was created by the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto. Regardless of who Nakamoto is/are, the ethos of open-source, decentralized and community-driven consensus building runs deep in Bitcoin’s DNA. To challenge that ethos is to challenge the very foundation of what Bitcoin stands for.Even if Wright doesn’t control or own the entire BSV community, he is a very significant and influential stakeholder there. If we continue to allow trading of BSV on our platform, we run the risk of implicitly supporting such an attack on the open-source nature of Bitcoin, which is highly destructive to the Bitcoin ecosystem (and the crypto ecosystem as a whole).The string of events around the copyright to Bitcoin also highlights the challenge of branding conflicts between Bitcoin and its derivatives. Bitcoin is an open software. To the best of our knowledge, there are roughly 102 crypto assets that emerged as a fork of Bitcoin. Some of these assets forked Bitcoin’s source code, and have unique names and logos (e.g. Litecoin). A few others chose to hard-fork and mis-use Bitcoin’s brand to promote themselves as the “true Bitcoin” (e.g. BSV and BCH). This branding decision is, in hindsight, a questionable path forward.2020 was the year when we welcomed a new wave of investors into crypto. Most of them are embracing crypto because of their interest in Bitcoin. Such branding ambiguity for Bitcoin can be very misleading to new retail investors. As we at OKCoin continue to build a global gateway to crypto, we have to ask ourselves: how can we play a responsible role in promoting awareness and protecting new entrants from unintentional trades?After reflecting on all these questions, we knew we had to make a choice. To be honest, it is a hard choice for us, which has led to a lot of earnest internal debate. In either direction, we run the risk of violating certain principles we’ve been following since our inception. But unfortunately, inaction is action. We are not a decentralized platform, where the course of action can be ultimately reflected in all actions taken by everyone over time. The best we can do is to take a stand to protect the original ethos of Bitcoin, and to protect our customers. Our decision on BSV and BCHSo here we are, with our decision to remove BSV and BCH from trading on our platform in an effort to firmly stand up for the shared spirit of the open-source community, support the Bitcoin ecosystem and protect new investors.To be clear, we are not against hard forks in general, and we see the value that some of these networks are creating. We are also not against the communities that believe in the utility of these tokens. We are very much aware that some members of the BSV and BCH communities are actively building use cases that they believe will benefit people beyond their own community. We fully respect that. People should be able to agree to disagree.We are just having a hard time ignoring the malicious misinformation war waged by Craig Wright and other high-profile members of these communities; nor can we gracefully give investors access to BSV or BCH while realizing that some may feel tricked or confused by the branding ambiguity between these assets and Bitcoin.We view both factors as very destructive to Bitcoin — the cornerstone layer of our industry. Before we have a better way to both separate BSV from Wright’s attack on the open-source community, and to differentiate these two derivative protocols from the original Bitcoin on our platform, we feel more comfortable with removing them.Should the BSV and BCH communities listen to the broader market and choose to rebrand away from Bitcoin in pursuit of their own path, we would be very happy to revisit our decision and change our stance on these assets.We are thankful to the many community members who have reached out to us sharing their concerns. As explained above, this was not an easy decision, but we followed our heart and strived to do the right thing. We firmly believe that as we continue to build a more open and inclusive new system, it is important to remember what has brought us together here in the first place. Looking ahead, we will continue to invest in the Bitcoin ecosystem, and stand up in support of the open-source and decentralized ethos of our industry.Looking forward to more constructive and open discussions in 2021.[ 18 February 2021 ] Wright v. McCormack - court report #2_csw_fker_.mp4[ 18 February 2021 ] Craig "Nuclear Armageddon" Wright doesn't do predictions anymore, it seems :D[ 18 February 2021 ] Craig Wright - The May 2016 Signings Exit-Strategy (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/craig-wright-may-2016-signings-exit-strategy-arthur-van-pelt)_loser_.mp4[ 17 February 2021 ] Let's take a deep dive into the forgery of yesterday's quiz.csw.again.loser.mp4[ 17 February 2021 ] #Faketoshi Fun Fact:Did you know the "Stefan's coffee stained #Bitcoin whitepaper" lie, sorry anecdote, dates back to 2017 already?And that @CalvinAyre got a slap on the wrist when he, accidentally or not, didn't follow the #Faketoshi script in 2019 with an "USB"? :D [ 16 February 2021 ] Craig's lawyer claims Calvin "dropped out" of McCormack case (and other nuggets from yesterday's hearing)csw.is.loser.mp4[ 16 February 2021 ] Wright v. McCormack - court report #1loser_of_loserz.mp4.mp4[ 16 February 2021 ] "Created" Bitcoin, but does NOT have ability to proper code own fucking site! Just LOL!fakest_loser_idiot.mp4[ 16 February 2021 ] Another shit talking from nobrainer idiot! [ 10 February 2021 ] "#Faketoshi in full-on larp mode claiming "Don't trust, verify" derives from the famous quote "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". It doesn't. It's from a Russian proverb popularised in the West by Ronald Reagan. There's zero linkage between the two. Nothing. Nada." doveryai_no_proveryai.mp4 twitter_doveryai_no_proveryai.mp4 [ 06 February 2021 ] Another lie from Idiot Shit Wright (cause only idiot would trust him): [ 05 February 2021 ] COPA stands for an open financial system and was formed to remove barriers that stifle innovation. We are hosting the Bitcoin whitepaper and stand with our members and the crypto community to address this issue. Here’s our letter in response to last week’s cease and desists. - https://twitter.com/opencryptoorg/status/1357757123493384194 [ 27 January 2021 ] The biggest Aussie cryptocurrency exchange Independent Reserve is delisting Bitcoin SV (BSV) and all related trading pairs. https://blog.independentreserve.com/news/bitcoin-sv-bsv-delisting
Big news regarding Faketoshi and his ownership regarding Tulip Trust addresses
Someone signed this message from 100 addresses with BTC mined in 2009: "Craig Steven Wright is a liar and a fraud. He doesn't have the keys used to sign this message. The Lightning Network is a significant achievement. However, we need to continue work on improving on-chain capacity. Unfortunately, the solution is not to just change a constant in the code or to allow powerful participants to force out others. We are all Satoshi"
Did Craig Shit Wright claim this was his address? Yes, he did indeed. Therefore he's a liar and a fraud. https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=docket_id%3A6309656%201FbPLPR1XoufBQRPGd9JBLPbKLaGjbax5m&type=r&order_by=score%20desc https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/541/1/kleiman-v-wright/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/266/1/kleiman-v-wright/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/512/7/kleiman-v-wright/
QUOTES FROM JUDGE REINHART'S ORDER FOLLOWING THE SAME EVIDENTIARY HEARING:
I completely reject Dr. Wright’s testimony about the alleged Tulip Trust, the alleged encrypted file, and his alleged inability to identify his bitcoin holdings.
Dr. Wright’s story not only was not supported by other evidence in the record, it defies common sense and real-life experience.
During his testimony, Dr. Wright’s demeanor did not impress me as someone who was telling the truth. When it was favorable to him, Dr. Wright appeared to have an excellent memory and a scrupulous attention to detail. Otherwise, Dr. Wright was belligerent and evasive.
He did not directly and clearly respond to questions. He quibbled about irrelevant technicalities. When confronted with evidence indicating that certain documents had been fabricated or altered, he became extremely defensive, tried to sidestep questioning, and ultimately made vague comments about his systems being hacked and others having access to his computers. None of these excuses were corroborated by other evidence.
There was substantial credible evidence that documents produced by Dr. Wright to support his position in this litigation are fraudulent. There was credible and compelling evidence that documents had been altered. Other documents are contradicted by Dr. Wright’s testimony or declaration. While it is true that there was no direct evidence that Dr. Wright was responsible for alterations or falsification of documents, there is no evidence before the Court that anyone else had a motive to falsify them. As such, there is a strong, and unrebutted, circumstantial inference that Dr. Wright willfully created the fraudulent documents.
Kleiman v Craig Wright: The bitcoins that never were
Today some news landed about a $10B lawsuit against Craig Wright (the Australian man who claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous inventor of Bitcoin), and it is an interesting read, but unfortunately for anyone involved, its claims have little basis in reality. The lawsuit purports that Wright fraudulently acquired large number of bitcoins owned by Dave Kleiman through forging various documents, but the very existence of those bitcoins in the first place is just another fantasy.
I had previously seen some of the material included as exhibits in the lawsuit, and my opinion was that all the documents that made specific testable claims as to owning bitcoins were relatively easy to debunk as simple backdated forgeries (possibly for use in Wright's alleged tax fraud schemes). I Am Not A Lawyer, but it seems somewhat fitting that Wright now finds himself sued by someone taking many of those claims at face value, as Wright's seemingly only defense would be to allow those prior claims to be proven false.
The lawsuit, brought by Dave Kleiman's relatives (Kleiman passed away in 2013) largely recounts the story as presented by Craig Wright (in public or privately), that Wright and Kleiman together were involved in the creation of Bitcoin and owned a large number of bitcoins, taking these claims at face value. At the same time, the lawsuit represents Wright as fraudulent and untrustworthy, having forged a number of documents for various financial gains.
Ultimately, this is a case of self-serving reasoning that doesn't hold up to scrutiny; if Wright falsifies and invents facts to suit his own purposes in one part, why would he be considered a trustworthy source for the other information? Most of Wright's narrative is full of holes and provably false, and the lawsuit spends much of its time recounting Wright's numerous lies over time. Time to connect the final dots and include the so called 1,100,000 bitcoins in the list of falsehoods.
The bitcoins that never were
Throughout the many included exhibits, here are some of the many bitcoins that are in one way or another claimed to have been part of Wright's and Kleiman's alleged involvement in Bitcoin:
1933phfhK3ZgFQNLGSDXvqCn32k2buXY8a: ~110,000 BTC (exhibit 4) Claimed to "held in escrow" as part of a transfer of BTC from Kleiman to Wright in exchange for shares in a new company. However, this is just a withdrawal address associated with an entirely unrelated user of MtGox, and has nothing to do with either Kleiman or Wright:
12hRmmSda9qSSEH656zBaKEbeisH6ZhdTm: ~335,000 BTC (exhibit 10) Claimed to be owned by Wright and supposedly used to lend Kleiman 50,000 BTC as part of a software development licensing and financing agreement. However, this is actually an internal MtGox address, descending directly from Mark Karpelès' famous 424,424.42424242 proof-of-solvency transaction in 2011:
12C9c9VQLMrLi4Ffzq2wDvwrKnUPaAaNFp: 250,000 BTC (exhibit 10) Same as above, claimed to be owned by Wright and supposedly used for a 250,000 BTC loan. However, this address actually belongs to original MtGox founder Jed McCaleb:
Here the document even gets the transaction it's referring to backwards, reinforcing the idea that Wright was not familiar with the transaction but merely found it on the blockchain, including its details in a backdated document to suggest foreknowledge (and hence ownership).
Various addresses amounting to 650,000 BTC (exhibit 11) Claimed to be held by Uyen Nguyen and lent to Craig Wright. Let's go through them one by one and see what we know about these from blockchain analysis:
Edit: This list originally contained several named users, but after receiving objections as to their accuracy and requests to remove such claims, I have deleted all such mentions. It is my belief the point should still carry across without having to jeopardize the privacy or safety of unrelated individuals.
Even with many of the address owners unnamed, this is clearly not a list of assets held in some trust. Even a single address claimed but apparently belonging to someone else would be a big red flag, and here we have more than a handful of cases I can very confidently state have nothing to do with Wright.
Further, several of the addresses did not yet exist or hold any bitcoins as of the purported date of this document (October 2012), with many of them not showing up until mid-2013.
The MtGox cold storage addresses are the same that became known as the lost and found 200,000 BTC. Also notably, the 1Feex... address was the direct recipient of the first major MtGox theft, where 80,000 BTC was taken out of the hot wallet just before Jed McCaleb handed over the company to Mark Karpelès. Effectively, Wright/Nguyen seem to be claiming to have robbed MtGox.
Speaking of MtGox, both Wright and Nguyen had accounts there: #433804 and #465042 respectively. Wright registered and used his account for a bit in order to buy bitcoins in April 2013, which he later withdrew and sent a few thousand dollars' worth to Nguyen, and a few hundred dollars' worth to the 1933ph... above (possibly an attempt to make a blockchain connection). Nguyen's account was registered later in 2013; its only BTC deposits are from Craig Wright. By any standard both of these accounts are small and unremarkable compared to most big bitcoiners.
Most of these addresses actually have only one thing in common, which is a big clue to why they're in the list: they at some point held significant amounts of bitcoin in them.
This isn't some grand conspiracy of having stolen a million bitcoins, it's some guy browsing a "blockchain rich list", picking out a couple of addresses at random and saying "I own those" for whatever reasons, while offering no evidence except for some clumsy document backdating. These claims would never have gotten past an actual specialist.
While the lawsuit is a nonsensical fight over unrelated funds that never belonged to either party, it offers the rest of us a valuable reminder of how you'll easily get taken advantage of if you don't follow the #1 rule of Bitcoin:
Don't trust. Verify.
Put simply, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Fortunately, thanks to Bitcoin, that's now as easy as a single cryptographic signature.
nChain staff amazed by gaps in Craig’s technical knowledge
Those who have worked with Craig Wright say he is not capable of being Satoshi
Craig Wright misunderstood opcodes and hash vulnerabilities
Craig Wright relied on technobabble and social manipulation with Peter Rizun
In Relation to Satoshi
Craig Wright called Bitcoin “bit coins”. Satoshi never used this naming
Craig Wright sold “Satoshi revelation” to nChain for “about ten million”
Craig Wright claimed to be a lawyer specializing in Finance Law, posting a picture of his degree dated 1 year before Satoshi stated he was not a lawyer. Craig got his law degree in 2008. In 2009 Satoshi Nakamoto said that he was not a lawyer.
Craig Wright: Anonymity is the shield of cowards. My life is open and I have little care for my privacy. (2008)
Craig Wright: Bitcoin is not a cryptocurrency. At no point have I said that Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency. Satoshi: Maybe [cryptocurrency] is a word we should use when describing Bitcoin. Announcing version 0.3 of Bitcoin, the P2P cryptocurrency!
Craig Wright falsely states he doesn’t want fame or money
Craig Wright claims Julian Assange is a rapist. Assange wasn’t charged. Stockholm’s Chief Prosecutor closed the rape case due to no offense being disclosed. Victim said, “it was the police who made up the charges”.
Craig Wright claimed to have “a couple doctorates” in 2015 and on his LinkedIn. Neither were produced in his wheelbarrow of degrees stunt. Doctor of Theology: Nobody can find it. Supposed University denied it. PhD: University denied it. Finally was rewarded one in 2017. It has math errors.
Craig Wright lost a bet with Peter Rizun. He refuses to pay and tried to lie his way out of it.
Craig Wright admitted to faking blog posts for Wired
Craig Wright: Turing never said that things had to be infinite. He never once in his life mentioned that. Alan Turing: we say that the machine has infinite memory capacity.
Craig lies about registering the Bitcoin.org domain
On April 12th, 2019 Craig S. Wright wrote a Medium article where he claimed to have paid for the Bitcoin.org domain with a credit card with an attached screenshot of the receipt.
In that article, Craig wrote, “This is the source of Vistomail and the registration of the domain bitcoin.org.” He then shows this screenshot.
He continues, “What you don’t realise yet is that I used my credit card. Yes, as crazy as it might seem to you, I used my credit card to purchase anonymous services.”
Craig S. Wright claims to have sent an email to Dave Kleiman on 12, March 2008. He claims to have used an email from a domain that was not registered until January 23, 2009.
Craig botches the BTC genesis block date
Satoshi Nakamoto announces the v0.1 release of Bitcoin six days after the genesis block is mined.
Craig S. Wright creates a document dated January 10, 2009 stating the Bitcoin beta will go live January 11, 2009. That is 8 days after the genesis block was mined, in case you are as bad at math as Craig S. Wright.
Craig cught lying about his wallets
This one is important. It is Craig S. Wright being caught lying about his Bitcoin wallets.
In the video bellow, at 23:25, Craig Wright does not appear to know what signed/unsigned integers are.
Craig Wright claims to be working on AI and evolutionary code (obviously never happened)
Craig SHIT Wright is a fraud who has been attempting to impersonate Satoshi Nakamoto (the original author of the Bitcoin white paper) for years now. He failed to prove this claim on multiple occasions, he notably got exposed for faking digital signatures (https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9xr437/no_theres_no_evidence_that_satoshi_signed_a_new/e9uhfh6/) attempting to prove it (and apparently is not even being able to code a simple Hello World program (https://archive.vn/gEfaK) by himself). He also lied (https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/bdxkii/the_fraud_continues_craig_wright_just_purposely/?limit=500) in court, in Australia, by producing fake documents trying to prove he was Satoshi, another failed attempt.
This week (24-Jan-2021) he started sending Cease and Desist letters to website owners who host the Bitcoin whitepaper, still falsely pretending to be Satoshi, and arguing it is his copyrighted work. It's clearly not his, but unfortunately the legal systems in many countries are such that when you are accused, even without evidences, you still have to defend yourself and/or spend money on a legal defense. So some website owners are complying to his legal threats, just because they can't bother spending the time/money... fortunately the whitepaper is stored on-chain, so even if that fraud scared everyone owning a website which hosts the whitepaper it would still be accessible by just running a Bitcoin node and synchronizing it with the rest of the decentralized network.
Some background on Craig’s claim of being Satoshi, for the uninitiated:
He faked blog posts (https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/80ryvc/craig_wright_2008_august_26_blog_post_i_have_a/duxwsyk/)
He faked PGP keys (https://medium.com/@tbrice/wrights-appeal-to-authority-paper-disproved-its-own-thesis-8f2d45e5df24) He faked contracts and emails (http://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html) He faked threats (https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/80o2xf/its_time_for_another_reminder_craig_wright_is_not/duxbjuw/) He faked a public key signing (http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/05/craig-wright-s-proof-he-invented-bitcoin-is-basically-a-canadian-girlfriend.html) He has a well-documented history of fabricating things bitcoin and non-bitcoin related (see numbers 88 through 102) (https://www.scribd.com/document/372445546/Bitcoin-Lawsuit) He faked a bitcoin trust to get free money from the Australian government but was caught and fined over a million dollars. (https://www.scribd.com/document/372445140/Exhibit-12)
And specifically concerning his claim to be Satoshi:
He has provided no independently verifiable evidence He is not technically competent in the subject matter (https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/96u1ft/invested_15000_in_crypto/e44er19/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=btc&utm_content=t1_e6gehy3) His writing style is nothing like Satoshi's (http://seclists.org/basics/2008/Mar/42 & http://satoshinakamoto.me/) He called bitcoin "Bit Coin" in 2011 when Satoshi never used a space (https://theconversation.com/lulzsec-anonymous-freedom-fighters-or-the-new-face-of-evil-2605#comment_6162) He actively bought and traded coins from Mt. Gox in 2013 and 2014 (https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hx3q9/according_to_the_mtgox_leaks_from_early_2014_our/) He was paid millions for 'coming out' as Satoshi as part of the deal to sell his patents to nTrust - for those who claim he was 'outed' or had no motive (http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-729.989-732.0)
His mental illness:
Remember that little while early 2019 when Craig Wright scammed about something called *BlackNet*? He even committed perjury in front of the @CFTC!
I'm following the Bitcoin related news since 2012. So the moment I noticed that Craig Wright popped up in the Bitcoin scene in December 2015, it didn't feel "right". To me, when a person claims to be (part of) Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor(s) of Bitcoin, it should be almost instantly clear if that claim holds any truth beyond any doubt. So I've been following Craig Wright ever since, only to see him fail time after time to prove he's Satoshi Nakamoto. To me, it is absolutely clear that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.
When in March/April 2019 Craig Wright started to sue Bitcoin community members Adam Back, hodlonaut and Peter McCormack for defamation after they called him out for being a fraud, I felt it was my role to map out all the discrepancies, false claims and forgeries of Craig Wright, and post about this subject on Twitter. Based on several requests, this timeline has been created to gather all my research over the years, mixed with research of my friends in the Bitcoin community. Kudos to everyone who made it to this timeline, you've done a great job! 👍
A big, special thanks goes to SeekingSatoshi for not only helping me with outstanding research, but also for offering a place to host my timeline. And 🙏 to Bitcoin Meme Hub for creating the header artwork. You guys rock hard. 🤟
Bitcoin (BTC) donations:
The year 2001
General At the time of writing (September 2019), the most backdated #Faketoshi claim of Craig Wright is about a whitepaper released in 2001.
General In this year, the Bitcoin whitepaper was released. And here is where Craig Wright starts ramping up his backdated #Faketoshi story, supported by forgeries. Note that the "His Real Bitcoin Career" tweetstorm will not provide information about the years 2008-2010, as there is currently no evidence that Craig Wright knew about Bitcoin in those years.
General January 3, 2009 is the date the Bitcoin network started running. Starting in 2014, Craig Wright made several #Faketoshi statements about the early days of Bitcoin, many of them being inconsistent with historical Bitcoin facts.
General Craig Wright build his #Faketoshi story in phases, starting second half of 2013 with a 2011-2013 mining/IP contract around dead Dave Kleiman and his company W&K Info Defense Research LLC, in which it was not yet implied that Craig Wright and/or Dave Kleiman were involved with inventing & starting Bitcoin. The latter only started in 2014. All these phases together create a patchwork of backdated claims and - "evidence", supported by several types of digital - and paper forgeries. 2011 can be considered the year of the infamous Tulip Trust. However, 2011 is also the year that Craig, and Calvin Ayre for that matter, learned about Bitcoin for the first time, for real.
General As noted before, 2013 (second half) is where Craig Wright starts creating a false trail of evidence for his Bitcoin involvement. A must read article by Satoshi Itches about the roots of Craig's false claims & forgeries can be found in April.
General Dave Kleiman died April 26, 2013. After having build on his 2011-2013 mining/IP scheme around (dead) Dave Kleiman in the second half of 2013, Craig contacts the Kleiman family early 2014. Many of the (backdated) 2011-2013 #Faketoshi forgeries have been created in 2014.
- The year 2015 General 2015 is the year where Craig Wright starts infiltrating the Bitcoin community. The Hackernoon article describes that process. The apotheosis of the year comes in December, when Craig Wright reveals himself to a global audience, quickly followed by all kinds of theories what might have happened. This is also the point in time that severe scrutiny on Craig Wright's claims start, as "an extraordinary claim asks for extraordinary proof". Up till today, this proof has never been delivered though. Instead, an ever growing list of debunked claims, discrepancies and proven forgeries has been build.
General After a few months silence since the December 2015 frenzy, Craig Wright gives his #Faketoshi attempts a new boost. In private demonstrations to journalists of BBC and The Economist in early May, he signs a message provided by himself, then verifies its signature in front of his (non-technical) audience. These sessions are explained, and debunked, by Dan Kaminsky and in the CCN article.
General Although having been called out numerous times by now, Craig Wright continues to claim he is Satoshi Nakamoto. He finds support in the Bitcoin Cash community. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is a forked altcoin of Bitcoin (BTC) that came into existence in August 2017.
General 2018 is a very notable year, as the Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit starts. In which the Kleiman estate, represented by Ira Kleiman, the brother of late Dave Kleiman, puts a claim of no less than $5.1 billion on Craig Wright. This lawsuit will prove to be very fruitful in discovering more #Faketoshi forgeries of Craig Wright. In November Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) splits from Bitcoin Cash (BCH), despite several threats of Craig Wright that there will be "no split!". After the split, Craig Wright threatens to "bankrupt BTC/BCH", however fails to materialize his threats so far.
General After having created his own community around altcoin BSV, supported by news outlet Coingeek & Coingeek Mining and his own blog where he regularly posts his musings about altcoin BSV (and keeps on making claims about being Satoshi Nakamoto), Craig Wright thinks it's now a good idea to start suing a handful of well known crypto currency community members. Among them bitcoiners Adam Back, "hodlonaut" and Peter McCormack.