#FakeToshi aka Craig SHIT Wright

Craig Shit Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto !


[ 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. Report @ONTIERLaw and @SimonCohen85 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.
  • At 17:30 UTC, the wallet on the server uses this key as a change address for a withdrawal transaction.
  • 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

 #!/usr/bin/env python # pybitcointools https://github.com/vbuterin/pybitcointools from bitcoin import * # output of `bitcoin-cli getrawtransaction 828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe` tx = '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' # from `bitcoin-cli getrawtransaction 12b5633bad1f9c167d523ad1aa1947b2732a865bf5414eab2f9e5ae5d5c191ba 1` spk = '410411db93e1dcdb8a016b49840f8c53bc1eb68a382e97b1482ecad7b148a6909a5cb2e0eaddfb84ccf9744464f82e160bfa9b8b64f9d4c03f999b8643f656b412a3ac' # create signature verification 'modified transaction' modtx = signature_form(tx, 0, spk, 1) print dbl_sha256(from_string_to_bytes(changebase(modtx, 16, 256)) + encode(1, 256, 4)[::-1]) # Outputs the hex value of Craig Wright's "sn7-message.txt" file. print sha256(from_string_to_bytes(changebase(modtx, 16, 256)) + encode(1, 256, 4)[::-1]) 

[ 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."

[ 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.

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.

You can verify yourself: craig-shit-wright.zip

Kleiman v. Wright - kleiman-v-wright.pdf


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

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:

    b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,e70f4a61-b6d2-43e0-aebb-7472ad034904,"2011-07-04 17:53:45",withdraw,-2841.45 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,08134fa1-52c7-4c4a-9916-5a78a7344ec5,"2011-07-05 15:09:19",withdraw,-1495.5 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,f8e186b0-d8ee-4064-be64-054258ca631c,"2011-07-05 19:00:10",withdraw,-1495.49999999 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,e5888c99-fc43-4bf0-82f0-9daa5fbbb28f,"2011-07-05 22:59:49",withdraw,-1530.98062227 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,426a0007-3797-4c81-8e37-f8fa2e835ed6,"2011-07-23 22:37:24",withdraw,-727.33370629 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,b02c1405-9cce-4b77-b7e5-237515027252,"2011-08-02 04:17:27",withdraw,-1 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,2308d9b6-1ee6-457f-966a-c198237cf449,"2011-08-02 04:45:24",withdraw,-1 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,7e128c5c-1e88-45f1-a17d-aded6c4b16e4,"2011-08-02 04:46:23",withdraw,-1776 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,168a83ac-a3a8-4051-b687-7b6f3bdb2dcd,"2011-08-02 12:36:03",withdraw,-232.1959 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,49c6387c-5d2d-4d42-b523-5c8844a16a97,"2011-08-02 22:32:58",withdraw,-933.91 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,1c361be6-e6eb-4040-b81a-e9386ca91f7e,"2011-08-03 01:23:48",withdraw,-1043.13305585 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,04f33017-b0a6-4c2d-b924-96fde5323e5c,"2011-08-06 14:54:49",withdraw,-5419.53237126 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,26d4c3a8-2211-466f-94d8-eb8dda1e7180,"2011-10-27 12:50:14",withdraw,-15000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,cfe0a762-0ae9-49b1-98ee-9594dcee823a,"2011-10-28 17:59:13",withdraw,-1913.98495583 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,8a4b61f5-bb43-437d-82d4-d231bcec77ae,"2011-12-20 19:01:54",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,9fab3a11-0df4-45b4-bb56-ccbf25297e70,"2011-12-20 19:02:10",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,6bfce163-1133-45b7-8c58-8645f204f7a7,"2011-12-20 19:02:27",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,ce39ef5c-3657-4d92-a4d4-b3dbb21d86b3,"2011-12-20 19:02:52",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,e5562d1b-6932-4384-b5f9-debcfb03e911,"2011-12-20 19:03:14",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,10d69fbb-9f00-43e8-b445-5ccac706a9f1,"2011-12-20 19:03:24",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,61633710-e0be-4743-b8e2-945c2b302983,"2011-12-20 20:07:48",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,88146b9d-aceb-485c-b97b-d9b92e8a76fb,"2011-12-20 20:08:03",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,02802191-765b-4785-85fe-495f0742852f,"2011-12-20 20:08:12",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,3ad45bfe-69bf-439e-8d81-110c5b496b5c,"2011-12-20 20:08:25",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,e5beca8d-503b-4030-839c-b84d8490c369,"2011-12-20 20:08:39",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,01925733-af3d-4678-91dc-3044dcb567c4,"2011-12-20 20:08:48",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,206142fe-c6e2-44dc-9056-4dadd6561168,"2011-12-20 20:08:58",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,c03a05f6-87cb-4f96-9a96-d3b4de6f820f,"2011-12-20 20:09:15",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,3a1848c9-6dbd-40e5-aa6e-7cd1e35b273d,"2011-12-20 20:23:54",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,3cb1dc9d-a1cc-40c2-a684-30ced7a69f5d,"2011-12-20 20:24:07",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,34848e93-b754-4e0c-a1cd-b64f0932fcf4,"2011-12-20 20:24:18",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,027cc3b3-bcbd-4291-a254-5c896424e181,"2011-12-20 20:24:27",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,2ac84f8c-ca47-466a-a23c-ed70d9775341,"2011-12-20 20:24:38",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,f4bd5345-d519-4f12-8283-b46a4270eea0,"2011-12-20 20:24:50",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,ef2ce22a-f0c7-4eee-a196-329b3c5757bc,"2011-12-20 20:25:00",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,397a5929-f8b0-4241-a8ff-b8870d5faf61,"2011-12-20 20:25:10",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,53835d67-04c3-4914-8db4-d2c6dfa7f598,"2011-12-20 20:26:51",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,e74837c9-2be2-437b-8bb5-5d14de0952a2,"2011-12-20 20:27:00",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,234018b0-d8d4-452c-b10d-05ba50e9b1cb,"2011-12-20 20:27:55",withdraw,-1000 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,34fa39dd-8d36-4c28-ba99-d1e2d06f54be,"2012-08-25 20:52:05",withdraw,-3.12606703 b169b66e-023c-462e-8ae4-9cb2db3f2219,c8087502-b81b-4861-b707-b9556e591334,"2012-11-15 06:30:16",withdraw,-94.1574241

  • 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.

In conclusion

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.

Funny how Wright has never provided one?

  • Table of contents

  • Forgeries, Fakes, and Plagiarism
  • Experts Stating Craig Wright Is a Fraud
  • Craig Wright Attacking Cryptocurrency Experts
  • Technical Competence
  • In Relation to Satoshi
  • Social Media Shenanigans
  • Other Lies
  • Notable Appearances
  • Misc.
  • FAQ

  • Please enjoy and get informed - Faketoshi must be stopped!

    Forgeries, Fakes, and Plagiarism

    • WikiLeaks has consistently helped check the validity of Craig S. Wrights claims. Link to Cult of Craig Github here.
    Craig's document about forgery
    • Craig Wright edited old blog posts to link himself to the Bitcoin whitepaper
    Craig's document about forgery
    • Craig Wright faked PGP keys
    Screenshot of article on web archive
    Web Archive
    • Craig Wright forged contracts and emails
    Screenshot of web archive
    Web Archive
    • Craig Wright faked threats
    Screenshot of web archive
    Web Archive
    • Craig Wright faked a public key signing
    Screenshot of web archive
    Web Archive
    • Craig Wright faked knowing how to code ASM
    Screenshot of web archive
    Web Archive
    Screenshot of web archive
    Web Archive
    • Craig Wright faked David Kleiman’s signature

    That time that Craig S. Wright faked Dave Kleiman’s signature

    Craig Faked David Kleiman's Signature

    Craig Faked David Kleiman's Signature

    • Craig Wright backdated documents to the ATO. “Craig Wright, has admitted that he backdated these invoices.” Fined $1,893,714.50 penalty.
    Screenshot of web archive
    • Craig Wright forged a 2001 pre-Bitcoin whitepaper draft. He did so to shift the goalposts of Satoshi to favor Bitcoin SV.
    Screenshot of web archive
    • Craig Wright plagiarized a paper on Bitcoin Script being Turing complete
    Screenshot of web archive
    • Craig Wright plagiarized a paper on selfish mining
    Screenshot of web archive
    • Craig Wright plagiarized a paper on block propagation
    Screenshot of web archive
    Screenshot of web archive
    • Craig Wright plagiarized a blog post on script. From Wikipedia.
    Screenshot of web archive

    Experts Stating Craig Wright Is a Fraud

    • Nik Cubrilovic (security expert): Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.
    Screenshot of web archive
    • Peter Rizun (Bitcoin Unlimited chief scientist): rejects Craig Wright’s claim that Bitcoin can be faster than light speed.
    Screenshot of web archive
    • Charlie Lee (Litecoin inventor): I can’t believe some people still think he’s Satoshi.
    twitter Screenshot Charlie Lee
    • Vitalik Buterin (Ethereum inventor) writes 59 tweets about Craig Wright’s talk: Craig Wright is crazy and he stands up at conference and calls Craig Wright a fraud.

    • Amaury Sechet (Bitcoin ABC lead developer) and Vitalik Buterin refute Craig Wright’s negative gamma comment.

    Screenshot of web archive
    • Peter Rizun (Bitcoin Unlimited chief scientist) calls out Craig Wright lying about him.
    Screenshot of web archive
    • Paul Sztorc (TruthCoin’s chief scientist) calls out mathmeatical errors in Craig Wrigt’s paper.

    CSW is a fraud telling desperate LargeBlockers what they want to hear, veering into Econ for the purpose of desperate obfuscation.

    Paul Sztorc (TruthCoin’s chief scientist)

    • Andrew O’Hagan (London Review of Books editor) writes about how Craig Wright was paid $15M to claim he was Satoshi to escape financial difficulties.
    Screenshot of web archive
    • Craig Wright’s mom says he’s prone to lying.
    Screenshot of web archive
    • Krawisz suggests that Craig Wright is over the top to specifically attract a non-technical following. See also Microsoft research paper on Nigerian Prince scam emails.
    Screenshot of web archive
    • In 2010, security expert says Craig Wright’s writing is “complete drivel and even laughable”.
    Screenshot of web archive
    • Craig Wright claims secp256k1 can do pairing . Andy Polestra (Director of Research at Blockstream) refutes and Vitalik Buterin (Ethereum inventor) refutes , refutes more , and re-refutes.
    Screenshot of web archive

    Craig Wright Attacking Cryptocurrency Experts

    • Craig Wright attacks Cornell professor Emin Gün Sirer

      Screenshot of web archive
    • Craig Wright emails Roger Ver, “welcome to bankruptcy … you are my enemy. You have fucking no idea what that means. You will.” Result: Roger Ver is not bankrupt.

    Screenshot of web archive
    Screenshot of web archive

    Technical Competence

    • Craig Wright misunderstood Satoshi’s Bitcoin code
    Screenshot of web archive
    • Craig Wright poses with nonsensical math to show off his mathematical proficiency
    Screenshot of web archive
    • Craig Wright didn’t understand Bitcoin transactions
    Screenshot of web archive
    • nChain staff amazed by gaps in Craig’s technical knowledge
    Screenshot of web archive
    • Those who have worked with Craig Wright say he is not capable of being Satoshi
    Screenshot of web archive
    • Craig Wright misunderstood opcodes and hash vulnerabilities
    Screenshot of web archive
    • Craig Wright relied on technobabble and social manipulation with Peter Rizun
    Screenshot of web archive

    In Relation to Satoshi

    • Craig Wright called Bitcoin “bit coins”. Satoshi never used this naming
    Screenshot of web archive
    • Craig Wright sold “Satoshi revelation” to nChain for “about ten million”
    Screenshot of web archive
    • 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.

    Satoshi Nkamoto email stating he is not a lawyer

    Craig Wright twitter

    Craig Wright Master Of Laws degree

    • Craig Wright: Anonymity is the shield of cowards. My life is open and I have little care for my privacy. (2008)
    Screenshot of web archive
    • 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!
    Screenshot of web archive

    Social Media Shenanigans

    Other Lies

    • Craig Wright lied about owning MtGox’s Bitcoin
    Screenshot of web archive
    • 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”.
    Screenshot of web archive
    • 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 lied about his philosophy PHD
    • Craig Wright lost a bet with Peter Rizun. He refuses to pay and tried to lie his way out of it.
    Screenshot of web archive
    • Craig Wright admitted to faking blog posts for Wired
    Screenshot of web archive
    • 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.

    Hosting 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.”

    Unfortunately for Craig, It was quickly discovered that anyone could purchase these services on existing domains.

    Hosting screenshot

    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.

    Email sent from fake email address

    • Craig botches the BTC genesis block date

    Satoshi Nakamoto announces the v0.1 release of Bitcoin six days after the genesis block is mined.

    Bitcoin v0.1 release

    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 botches the btc genesis block date

    Craig botches the btc genesis block date

    Craig botches the btc genesis block date

    Craig botches the btc genesis block date

    • Craig cught lying about his wallets

    This one is important. It is Craig S. Wright being caught lying about his Bitcoin wallets.

    Craig Caught Lying About His Wallets

    Craig Caught Lying About His Wallets

    Notable Appearances

    • 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)


    • Deleted CSW LinkedIn page: 22 pages long
    Screenshot of web archive
    • Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre offered $5,000 USD to doxx someone


    Who is Craig Wright?

    Craig Wright is an Australian computer scientist and businessman who claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor of Bitcoin.

    Is Craig Wright the real Satoshi?

    According to his sayings, yes he is. According to much of the media and the cryptocurrency community, no he is not, and this is backed by all kind of proofs.

    Does Satoshi Nakamoto own Bitcoin?

    Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, mined 1.1 million Bitcoin, in the first seven months of Bitcoin’s existence. This amount of Bitcoin worths about $10 billion, but it’s untouched to this day.

    What is Bitcoin whitepaper?

    Bitcoin whitepaper is a groundbreaking work published in 2008 by Satoshi Nakamoto. It is a peer-to-peer electronic cash system and it was published in 2008.

    What is Blockchain technology?

    ‘Blockchain’ comes from the ‘blocks’, which are individual records, that are linked in a single list, called ‘chain’. So, blockchain is digital record of transactions with cryptocurrencies.

    Exhibits A through Z:

    A. He faked blog posts

    B. He faked PGP keys

    C. He faked contracts and emails

    D. He faked threats

    E. He faked a public key-signing (actually he faked two)

    F. He has a well-documented history of fabricating things bitcoin and non-bitcoin related (see numbers 88 through 102)

    G. He faked a bitcoin trust to get free money from the Australian government but was caught and fined over a million dollars.

    H. He claimed that reserved OP codes were meant to be used in case of a future hash vulnerability, but that's utter nonsense.

    I. His writing style is nothing like Satoshi's

    J. He called bitcoin "Bit Coin" in 2011 when Satoshi never used a space

    K. He actively bought and traded coins from Mt. Gox in 2013 and 2014

    L. 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

    M. He plagiarized and backdated the bitcoin whitepaper abstract to pretend he wrote it.

    N. His math skills are absolutely abysmal.

    O. He claims that selfish mining doesn't even work in theory!

    P. He doesn't understand what the CENT variable is in the bitcoin client code, though he supposedly wrote it!

    Q. He doesn't understand the current bitcoin client code.

    R. He doesn't understand elliptic curve cryptography. (His claim and the devastating refutation.)

    S. He makes recommendations for mining that are provably idiotic.

    T. More (hilarious) lack of understanding of basic math.

    U. He didn't understand how the early bitcoin protocol worked.

    V. He has beginner-level misunderstandings of functions versus data types with bonus hilarious technobabble.

    W. His pseudocode has embarrassing, beginner-level errors.

    X. His most famous work (with Kleiman) is basically technobabble.

    Y. The team working for him at nChain was perplexed at his lack of technical skill.

    Z. He stole other blog posts' technical content.

    Forgeries, Fakes, and Plagiarism

    Other Lies

    Experts Stating Craig Wright Is a Fraud

    Craig Wright Attacking Cryptocurrency Experts

    Notable Appearances


    Technical Competence

    In Relation to Satoshi



    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!


    the  #faketoshi  fraud  TIMELINE

    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

    At the time of writing (September 2019), the most backdated #Faketoshi claim of Craig Wright is about a whitepaper released in 2001.

    - Debunk: Craig Wright's Blacknet (predecessor of Bitcoin) whitepaper doesn't exist
    - Debunk: Blacknet 2001, my ass
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - On plagiarism (tweetstorm)
    ​(contains history of his plagiarisms 2001 - 2019)

    The year 2004

    For the sake of history, Craig was once verdict for contempt of court in a case running from 2003 to 2006. The first verdict was in November 2004. Two appeals in 2005 and 2006 failed.

    - Info: Filing November 6, 2003
    - Info: Verdict November 15, 2004
    - Info: Verdict October 27, 2005
    ​- Info: Verdict June 15, 2006

    - Info: Bitmex Research - history of Craig's frauds (tweetstorm)

    The year 2006

    Since at least 2010, Calvin Ayre plays an important role in Craig Wright's life.

    - Info: The early history of Calvin Ayre (tweetstorm)

    The year 2007

    Satoshi Nakamoto said he started with Bitcoin (code & whitepaper) in 2007. Let's start following Craig Wright more closely from here. 

    - Info: Craig Wright claims he started with Bitcoin in 1998
    - Info: Craig Wright - Unraveling the bullshit (a few tips) (tweetstorm)
    - Info: Craig Wright - The key persons (tweetstorm)

    The year 2008

    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.

    - Debunk: Craig Wright - His Real Bitcoin Career (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - His Bitcoin Fraud Career (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Bitcoin whitepaper vs 2 Craig Wright whitepapers (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Proof of Fibre - Craig Wright's cow ranch Bagnoo (tweetstorm) 

    - Debunk: Craig->Dave "Bit cash, Bitcoin..."

    - Debunk: Paper contains "90% overlap with Bitcoin whitepaper"

    - Debunk: Craig pays for bitcoin.org with creditcard (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Craig Wright's blog "Cracked, inSecure and Generally Broken" (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Craig claims he wrote the Bitcoin whitepaper in August 2008 (tweetstorm)

    - Debunk: Craig Wright - Do. Not. Fuck. With. Hal. Finney (tweetstorm)

    The year 2010

    Craig Wright claimed to have had a "son" in 2010 that was mining Bitcoin. Right...

    - Debunk: Craig Wright crashed my live stream - Proof of mining son (tweetstorm)

    The year 2011

    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.

    - Info: Craig Wright - Up Close & Personal
    - Info: Craig Wright - Why is he using "trusts"?
    - Info: Hats off to Ira's counsel
    - Info: Dave Kleiman his only 4 YouTube videos
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - Tulip Trust Revisited (tweetstorm)

    - Debunk: Craig's 2014 blog post backdated to 2011 with Tulip Trust hint (tweetstorm)

    - Debunk: Craig Wright - The Bad Ass Bitcoin transactions (tweetstorm)

    - Debunk: Craig Wright buys 650,000/700,000 BTC (tweetstorm)

    - Debunk: Craig Wright never worked for Homeland Security

    - Debunk: Coingeek (Eli Afram) thinks June 24, 2011 email is genuine
    - Debunk: Sam Williams blog "The Tulip Trust is fake"

    - Debunk: The first, genuine, moments that Craig Wright learned & spoke about Bitcoin
    - Debunk: Ditto, in comments section of Craig Wright's article
    - Debunk: Comparison between Satoshi & Craig Wright's writing of "Bitcoin"
    - Debunk: Satoshi & Craig Wright about Wikileaks

    - Info: The New Yorker article "The Crypto-Currency - Bitcoin and its mysterious inventor."
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - The New Yorker (fun fact) (tweetstorm)

    - Debunk: The first, genuine, moment that Calvin Ayre learned & spoke about Bitcoin

    The year 2012

    As said, a patchwork of forgeries has been created since 2014 to support the #Faketoshi story. The ones that are supposed to support #Faketoshi activities in 2012 can be found here.

    ​- Debunk: Craig Wright plagiarized Robert Tauger


    - Info: FBI Report "Bitcoin Virtual Currency: Unique Features Present Distinct Challenges for Deterring Illicit Activity"

    - Debunk: Uyen Nguyen appointed as COO of 2 empty shelf companies (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - The England Shuffle (tweetstorm)

    - Debunk: "Tulip Trust" mentioned in emails between Craig Wright & Dave Kleiman

    - Debunk: About leaving in 2010 and using Bitmessage in 2012
    ​- Debunk: The Bitmessage Forgery

    The year 2013

    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.

    - Info: Craig Wright - The Obfuscation Game (tweetstorm)

    - Debunk: Craig Wright - Timewarping Denariuz shareholders (tweetstorm)

    - Info: The Coin-Exch fraud
    - Debunk: The first, genuine, moment that Craig Wright touched Bitcoin (tweetstorm)

    - Debunk: Satoshi Itches article "Craig Wright's tangled web - part 1" 
    - Discussion: Dave Kleiman - Owned Bitcoin?

    - Debunk: Craig altered a blog post about Dave Kleiman in 2015

    - Debunk: Craig Wright - The 2013 Court Australia Fraud (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - The evolution of Faketoshi

    The year 2014

    ​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.

    - Info: Craig Wright is disgusting

    - Info: ATO hearings on the 18th and 26th, transcript of the 18th here
    - Info: Craig Wright - The most damning 2014 ATO quotes in one Reddit post 
    - Info: BI article "The World's First Bitcoin-Based Bank"
    - Debunk: Craig Wright's changing story about Dave's W&K over the years
    ​(note that W&K was not a completely empty shelf company, as Craig & Dave tried to obtain paid projects from Homeland Security in 2011)
    - Debunk: Craig Wright's changing story about mining over the years (tweetstorm)

    - Debunk: Craig claims to have "significant exposure" on Mt Gox

    - Info: Craig Wright in video "The Bitcoin Doco" 

    - Info: Wired article "Someone's Threatening to Expose Bitcoin Founder Satoshi Nakamoto"
    - Info: CoinTelegraph article "Satoshi Nakamoto's Email Account Hacked"

    - The year 2015
    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.

    - Info: Hackernoon article "Bitcoin Belle’s CCme: The woman who brought you Craig ‘Satoshi’ Wright strikes again…"

    - Info: GrantCentral article "Big numbers involved in R&D Tax Incentive"
    - Info: Craig Wright's company DeMorgan hints to "Bitcoin research that lasted over 6 years"

    - Debunk: Craig Wright - Hello World! (and the world said hello back...)

    - Info: YouTube "All-Star Panel: Ed Moy, Joseph VaughnPerling, Trace Mayer, Nick Szabo, Dr. Craig Wright"

    (Craig Wright testing the waters for his #Faketoshi outcoming in December, with rare public appearance of Nick Szabo. Panel lead by Michele Seven (Bitcoin Belle))

    - Info: Wired article "Is Bitcoin's Creator This Unknown Australian Genuis? Probably Not (Updated April 2019)"
    - Info: Gizmodo article "This Aussie Says He And His Friend Invented Bitcoin"
    - Info: Gizmodo article "Here's All the Evidence That Craig Wright Invented Bitcoin"
    - Info: Gizmodo article "The Mystery of Craig Wright and Bitcoin Isn't Solved Yet"

    - Info: CCN article "Text Analysis Confirms Craig Wright Is Not Satoshi Nakamoto"
    - Info: BI article "The Australian who may have invented Bitcoin claimed to land $54M in taxpayer-funded rebates"
    - Info: BI article "REVEALED: The ATO's $1.7M penalty on a company owned by the Australian 'Bitcoin mastermind'"
    - Info:
    The Guardian article "Who is Craig Wright and how likely is it that he's behind bitcoin?"
    - Info: Forbes article "'Probable' Bitcoin Creator Is A Garrulous Government Security Contractor And Is In Legal Trouble"
    - Info: Vice article "Satoshi's PGP Keys Are Probably Backdated and Point to a Hoax"
    - Info: Hacking Distributed article "How To Spot Satoshi"

    - Info: ZDNet  article "SGI denies links with alleged bitcoin founder Craig Wright"
    - Info: The Verge article "Was the latest Bitcoin revelation actually an extortion scheme?"

    - Info: Forbes article "Time To Call A Hoax? Inconsistencies On 'Probable' Bitcoin Creator's PhD And Supercomputers Revealed"
    - Info: Wired article "New Clues Suggest Craig Wright, Suspected Bitcoin Creator, May Be A Hoaxer"
    - Info: The New Yorker article "The Bizarre Saga of Craig Wright, the Latest “Inventor of Bitcoin”"
    - Info: Mashable article "New chase for Bitcoin founder leaves everyone exhausted and no wiser"
    - Info: CoinDesk article "‘Satoshi’ Denies Being Wright Amid Doubts Over PGP Data"
    - Info: Vox article "Why I'm getting more skeptical of claims that Bitcoin's creator has been unmasked"
    - Info: The Conversation article "Have journalists found the inventor of Bitcoin or simply been duped?"
    (note that Craig Wright wrote about Bitcoin for the first time in July 2011 on The Conversation website in the comments to his own articles. Now The Conversation is using that evidence against Craig: "We actually have specific evidence that Craig Wright is very unlikely to be Satoshi Nakamoto.")
    - Info: Splinter News article "Who is the hacker that outed Craig Wright as the inventor of Bitcoin? Maybe Craig Wright himself."
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - The story of Andy Greenberg

    The year 2016

    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.

    - Info: Craig's blog "Jean-Paul Sartre, Signing And Significance"

    The following 3 media outlets were approached in advance by Craig Wright:

    - Info: The Economist article "Craig Steven Wright claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Is he?"
    - Info: The BBC article "Australian Craig Wright claims to be Bitcoin creator"
    - Info: GQ Magazine article "Dr Craig Wright Outs Himself As Bitcoin Creator Satoshi Nakamoto"

    Afterwards, Craig Wright wrote an article for The Register:

    - Info: The Register article "I am Craig Wright, inventor of Craig Wright"

    And a new media frenzy was started:

    - Info: Nik Cubrilovic blog post "Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto"
    - Info: Dan Kaminsky blog post "The Cryptographically Provable Con Man"
    - Info: Patrick McKenzie Github post "Attempting (Failed) Verification of the Wright Signature"
    - Info:
    BI article "The incredible career of Craig Steven Wright, the Australian scientist who claims he created Bitcoin"
    - Info: Washington Post article "What we know about Craig Steven Wright, who claims to have invented Bitcoin"
    - Info: CCN article "Craig Wright Is Not Satoshi Nakamoto - the Technical Proof"
    - Info: Forbes article "Craig Wright Claims He's Bitcoin Creator Satoshi -- Experts Fear An Epic Scam"
    - Info: Forbes article "Craig Wright Says Sorry, He Can't Offer Proof He's Bitcoin Creator Satoshi"
    - Info: The Register article "'Bitcoin creator' Craig Yeah Wright in meltdown"
    - Info: Complex Projective 4-Space blog "Is Craig Wright?"
    - Info: Intelligencer article "Why You Should Believe This Guy Is Bitcoin’s Creator (and Why You Shouldn’t)"
    - Info: Intelligencer article "Craig Wright’s ‘Proof’ He Invented Bitcoin Is the ‘Canadian Girlfriend of Cryptographic Signatures’"
    - Info: Intelligencer article "Craig Wright: Uh, Actually, I Won't Prove That I'm Satoshi Nakamoto"
    - Info: Ars Technica article "Craig Wright loudly claims "I am Satoshi Nakamoto", but few believe his "proof""
    - Info: Ars Technica article "Craig Wright promises "extraordinary proof" that he is Satoshi, coming soon"
    - Info: Ars Technica article "Craig Wright: "I don't have the courage" to prove I'm Satoshi Nakamoto"
    - Info: GQ article "Dr Craig Wright Outs Himself As Bitcoin Creator Satoshi Nakamoto"
    - Info: CoinTelegraph article "Why Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto"

    - Info: Ars Technica article "Craig Wright's proof that he invented Bitcoin: "F**k off, I'm not going to jump through hoops""
    - Info: GQ article "Is Craig Wright The Bitcoin Genius?"

    - Info: GQ article "Craig Wright: The Man Who Didn't Invent Bitcoin"

    The year 2017

    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.

    -Info: Reuters Research article "Bitcoin’s “creator” races to patent technology with gambling tycoon"


    - Info: ARNnet article "Australian Bitcoin figure's supercomputing company enters liquidation"
    - Debunk: Blog hoaxchain "The hard evidence about Craig Wright's backdated PGP key"

    The year 2018

    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.

    - Kleiman v. Wright: The start of the 5 billion dollar #BamboozleGate
    - Kleiman v. Wright: Trustnodes article "Filed Lawsuit Shows Craig Wright Claimed to Own Mt Gox's Bitcoins" 
    - Info: WizSec article "The bitcoins that never were"

    - Kleiman v. Wright: Craig Wright lies about not mining Bitcoin in the US

    - Kleiman v. Wright: It's not about Craig Wright (not) being Satoshi Nakamoto

    - Debunk: Craig Wright - The Bitcoin Alert Key Debunk (tweetstorm)

    The year 2019

    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.

    ​-Info: Comparison Craig Wright - Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos) (tweetstorm)

    Info: BBC article "Child abuse images hidden in [BSV] blockchain"

    - Info: Craig Wright starts defamation lawsuits
    - Info: Craig Wright admits to have had an alter ego Adam Selene in 2017
    - Kleiman v. Wright: Craig Wright pulls forged evidence "can't verify date"

    - Info: WizSec article "Kleiman v Craig Wright, part 2"
    - Debunk: Craig Wright crashing the market with his 1 million Bitcoins in trust (hoax?)
    - Debunk: Arthur van Pelt's #WeAreAllSatoshi Copyright Claim registration

    - Info: Coindesk article "ATO to crack down on crypto tax avoidance schemes"
    - Info: Should Bitcoin (Core) Developers sue Craig Wright?
    - Info: Craig Wright on anonymity
    - Kleiman v. Wright: Epic tweetstorm with June 28 hearing transcript & reactions
    - Kleiman v. Wright: About Craig's "Bitcoin frustration" in court (June 28)
    - Kleiman v. Wright: Falsely accusing the Bitcoin OGs in court (tweetstorm) (June 28)
    ​- Info: Craig Wright claims to have Asperger Syndrome
    - Info: Charlie Lee signed a block in 2016, Craig Wright however...

    - Info: WizSec article "Kleiman v Craig Wright, part 3"
    - Kleiman v. Wright: Craig admits in court having set up a tax avoidance scheme
    - Kleiman v. Wright: No access to BTC, still 821,050 BTC in 2020? (tweetstorm)
    - Kleiman v. Wright: No access to BTC, but still giving it all away?

    - Kleiman v. Wright: "the foundations will sell BTC for USD and BSV"
    - Kleiman v. Wright: 459 pages BTC addresses filed
    - Kleiman v. Wright: Total Destruction In Court (tweetstorm) (August 26)
    - Kleiman v. Wright: FT Alphaville "liar under oath - perjurer" article (August 26)
    - Kleiman v. Wright: Cointelegraph about Calvin Ayre's false claims (August 26)
    - Kleiman v. Wright: Judge Reinhart version of technobabble (August 26)
    - Kleiman v. Wright: Maximum possible penalty
    - Kleiman v. Wright: Ira dumping BTC or Craig buying BTC? 
    - Debunk: "Craig Wright is Bitcoin copyright holder."
    - Debunk: "Craig Wright - His scam articles gathered in a book."
    - Debunk: CCN article - "Bitcoin Faketoshi Fails Again? Craig Wright ‘Exposed’ by Microsoft Office"
    - Info: WizSec article "Kleiman v Craig Wright, part 4"
    - Info: WizSec article "Kleiman v Craig Wright, part 5"
    - Info: Craig Wright - Frauds (tweetstorm)
    - Info: Peter McCormack exploring a class action against Craig's camp 

    - Debunk: Coil.com article "Craig Wright IS Satoshi Nakamoto" (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Satoshi Nakamoto on Bitcoin
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - On Patents (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Hilarious podcast with 3 lawyers about the Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - Patent Wars
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - The Average Lifespan of his Business Endeavors (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Craig Wright caught backdating a paper "Understanding Conditionals in Shellcode"
    - Debunk: How being involved with BSV gives you a bad reputation
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - Death Threats to BTC (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Satoshi vs Craig on "data"

    - Info: Jameson Lopp article "Craig Wright's Copyright Claim"
    - Info: CryptoPotato article "
    Crypto Leaders to Boycott Conference Presenting Craig Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto"
    - Info: Craig Wright - The TL;DR Fraud Timeline Summary (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - Envisioning Bitcoin
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - Rusty Staples as evidence
    - Debunk: Rusty Staples - Bitcoinist article - Shitcoin article
    - Debunk: Meet Lisa, Craig's sister
    - Debunk: Bitmex Research about Craig's Wright frauds (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Painted Frog "One of his most ham fisted attempts to concoct fake evidence yet" (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Painted Frog "The Northumbria University update"
    - Debunk: Painted Frog "
    Something's not adding up about this coffee-stained whitepaper thing"
    - Video: Craig lies about having kissed Jim Morrison

    - Video: Craig meltdown during GQ interview
    - Video: Craig lies about never appearing on tv again
    - Debunk: How far away BSV is from Bitcoin
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - My revolution is not cypherpunk
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - Lying about Hal Finney once more
    - Fun fact: Craig Wright - Why he walks like C-3PO

    - Kleiman v. Wright: Craig Wright cannot finance settlement
    - Kleiman v. Wright: The Tulip Trust bonded courier is back!
    - Kleiman v. Wright: Craig Wright implies that Dave Kleiman stole Bitcoin from him 
    - Kleiman v. Wright: Debunk of Craig lying about Mike Hearn mined address
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - How he bamboozled Jon Matonis & Gavin Andresen
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - BTC is a 2017 taxable airdrop income
    - Meme: BSV 1 year anniversary
    - Debunk: Craig Wright on Bitcoin transactions
    - Debunk: Craig Wright kissed Jim Morrison (who died in 1971) in the 1990s
    - Debunk: Several inconsistencies in Craig Wright's blog posts

    - Kleiman v. Wright: Great summery by Ira's counsel of all Craig's lies in court
    - Kleiman v. Wright: Reply to this summary by Craig's counsel
    - Kleiman v. Wright: Info about Craig's wife Ramona Watts
    - Debunk: Craig explains the root of the Nakamoto pseudonym (1)
    - Debunk: Craig explains the root of the Nakamoto pseudonym (2)
    - Debunk: Craig Wright commits possible perjury about his Mt Gox holdings
    - Debunk: From Satoshi's open source to Faketoshi's BSV-only
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - On Wikileaks (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Why Craig Wright is wrong about Bitcoin being Turing Complete
    - Debunk: But in 2013, Craig Wright thought Bitcoin is NOT Turing Complete

    The year 2020

    Over the years, since 2014, Craig Wright has claimed numerous times that an amount of 1.1 million Bitcoins (the "Satoshi stash" mined by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009-2010), locked in a Seychelles blind trust called Tulip Trust, will come under his control in January 2020, as "bonded couriers will deliver the Shamir slices that give access to the private keys". In court Florida, during the Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit, after Craig declared he wasn't sure anymore if this would actually happen "since he didn't know if Dave Kleiman had arranged everything properly", this story has been labeled "file [with slices] does not exist" and "I have found that Dr. Wright intentionally submitted fraudulent [Tulip Trust and other] documents to the Court, obstructed a judicial proceeding, and gave perjurious testimony" by Judge Reinhart. So let's see what happens on January 1, 2020.

    Edit: As expected, nothing happened. And Craig kicked the can further down the road with yet another trust where the private keys are supposed to be held... 

    - Info: January 1, 2020 is the day.
    - Info: The Tulip Trust orchestrated price pump
    - Info: BeInCrypto article - Bitcoin SV Short May Be the Most Profitable Opportunity of 2020 
    - Opinion: Is the Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit complicated? Nah.
    - Kleiman v. Wright: Meet Tulip Trust III
    - Kleiman v. Wright: Summary of Craig's conflicting Tulip Trust story in court
    - Kleiman v. Wright: "Dr Wright has produced a list of his Bitcoin holdings"
    - Kleiman v. Wright: "Defendant has produced over 1.5 million pages"
    - Debunk: Andy Long - Discrepancy with Craig's 2019 sworn statement
    - Debunk: Andy Long - Discrepancy about Craig being yes/no trustee
    - Debunk: Craig Wright on Bitcoin being a crime coin
    - Debunk: Craig Wright's mistake about upload.ae (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Coingeek publishes Craig's "Microsoft patch Tuesday" lie (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Coingeek publishes "Microsoft patch Tuesday" disclaimer
    - Debunk: Coingeek deletes "Microsoft patch Tuesday" disclaimer
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - The Unbounded Capital scam (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Sam Williams article - Response to Unbounded Capital’s attempt to show that Craig Wright is Satoshi
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - His "Set In Stone" Misunderstanding (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Martin Sewell - CSW is the antithesis of Satoshi
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - Hal came in on Jan 12, 2009 (nope, Nov 2008)
    - Debunk: Craig Wright first started talking about Bitcoin in 2008 (nope, July 2011)
    - Debunk: "Liars tend to blink more because lying is stressful. Under stress, eye blink rate increases (Mann, 2013)."

    ​-Info: Craig Wright performs fraud on Binance, opens 100+ accounts

    - Info: Craig Wright - 7 years of hijacking Bitcoin overview
    - Info: 2 articles by Francesco Bonomi about Paul Le Roux
    - Info: nChain sells IP to Taal
    - Info: Update on Craig's 5 libel suits
    - Debunk: Craig Wright - To HODL or not to HODL, that's the question
    - Debunk: Craig Wright's LLM dissertation is full of plagiarism
    this article by painted_frog got some traction in the media:
    - Info: CoinTelegraph - Satoshi claimant Craig Wright accused of plagiarizing law degree  
    - Info: Decrypt - Craig Wright accused of plagiarizing his dissertation
    - Info: Bitcoin Magazine 2 hour YouTube podcast with Arthur van Pelt
    - Debunk: How was Craig Wright behaving around 2010? (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Modern Consensus - The case against Craig Wright part 1
    - Debunk: Modern Consensus - The case against Craig Wright part 2
    - Debunk: Craig Wright falsely connects his 2008 thesis to Calvin Ayre (tweetstorm)
    - Debunk: Overview why Craig Wright can't code (tweetstorm)

    - Debunk: Craig Wright heavily plagiarized his 2017 PhD thesis

    More general information

    - Court Docket: Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit
    - Court Docket: Kleiman v. Wright (Jimmy's compel)
    - Website: All Craig Wright lawsuits overview
    - Website: Stop Craig Wright

    - Bitcoin Magazine (Jameson Lopp): Op Ed: How many wrongs make a Wright?