Pinned Tweet Ordered by UK Court – Craig Wright Not Satoshi Nakamoto
twitter.comThis reminds me of the kerfuffle about the invention of e-mail:
> Ayyadurai is notable for his widely disputed claim of being the "inventor of email".[73] His claim is based on an electronic mail software called EMAIL, an implementation of interoffice email system, which he wrote as a 14-year-old student at Livingston High School, New Jersey in 1979.[15][74][note 1] Initial reports that repeated Ayyadurai's assertion—from organizations such as The Washington Post and the Smithsonian Institution—were followed by public retractions.[15][75] These corrections were triggered by objections from historians and ARPANET pioneers who cited the fact the history of email dated back to the early 1970s.[12] Ayyadurai started a campaign in 2011 in which he rebranded himself as the "Inventor of Email"; according to a paper published in Information & Culture, he "provoked a dramatic succession of exaggerated claims, credulous reporters, retractions, and accusations that a cabal of industry insiders and corrupt Wikipedia editors are colluding to hide the truth."[76]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_Ayyadurai#EMAIL_inventio...
Oh Shiva, he's practically a punchline in Massachusetts.
Among those who have heard of him, outside, too.
Wow! I just checked his website at https://vashiva.com
I'm pretty sure this is the worst website I've visited in a long long time.
Wow this man really screams charlatan
This seems like the modern equivalent of being made to stand in front of a store, wearing a sandwich board saying “I shoplifted from here”.
Which is great. A good public shaming is probably more of a deterrent than nebulous financial penalties or unlikely jail time. No one wants to be humiliated for their shenanigans.
He has also been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for perjury and forgery: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/faketoshi-referred-to-cps-...
Full judgement: https://assets.caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2024/...
Pretty obvious that whoever Satoshi is went to great lengths to be anonymous… anyone making a big effort to convince people they are Satoshi is definitely not Satoshi.
Reminds me of "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."
my theory is, they may have passed away before seeing bitcoin's glory days. the anonymity is purely coincidental.
Well that's the beauty of it, isn't it - right now even if the real Satoshi came out and said it was him all along, no one would believe him. It's the ultimate anonimity.
The real Satoshi could prove themselves with the keys to the first wallets, forum account logins, and probably lots of evidence of actually doing the project- early prototype code, handwritten notes, etc.
What if Satoshi knew that, and used this technique to convince everyone he is not actually Satoshi, but instead some charlatan called Craig.
This is a hilarious idea... talk about 3D chess and hiding in plain sight... convince people you're not him by actually claiming to be him with no evidence, just like a ton of other people are doing.
It then becomes literally impossible for someone to out you- nobody will listen to the guy that says "heh, I cracked the case, Satoshi is Craig Wright!"
How humiliating. But the punishment fits the crime in this case.
It's also interesting that UK courts can compel speech like this. Would the same remedy be available to US courts?
SCOTUS routinely holds that the US First Amendment also protects against government-compelled speech. The main case law in this regard deals with a Florida statute that required newspapers to publish a politician's reply to critical articles.
It's not clear to me if this would also extend to a court order requiring someone to publish something, but I think there's going to be some squeamishness as to whether that's a remedy a court can provide. (Obviously, an out-of-court settlement could provide for that).
The way US courts compel speech without actually compelling speech is: They offer you two choices, either you go to prison for a weirdly long time, or you "choose" to do <performative thing that won't really reform you but the judge can use in a campaign ad to say they are tuff on crime>
That's how those weird judges are able to "make" young kids stand on a street corner wearing a "I did a crime" placard.
Judges don’t run campaign ads
Aren't US newspapers sometimes ordered to issue an apology/retraction when they get sued?
I imagine a lot of times that is part of a settlement reached before the court case proceeds further. Example is Fox News vs Dominion voting systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Voting_Systems_v._Fox...
UK courts can also order a newspaper to publish a retraction or an apology, and can specify the prominence that should be given to it.
Could a US judge offer that an as alternative to fines or punishment? “Which do you want, penalties or a public admission?”
Many of the responses on that tweet are people saying “the courts are corrupt, he’s obviously Satoshi!” Absolutely insane what people will believe when they’re committed to it.
> Dr Wright has been ordered not to commence any legal proceedings based on his false claims (by claim or counterclaim) or procure any other person to do so.
I wonder what would happen if he do it in other jurisdiction. .. Does it count as a contempt of court?
[dupe]
Some more discussion on:
Self-proclaimed Bitcoin inventor referred to UK prosecutors for alleged perjury
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40975209
Craig Wright's claim of inventing Bitcoin may get him arrested for perjury
It is a thing of beauty.
There’s nothing quite like seeing an aggressive blowhard bullshitter get a proper telling off.
What led the court to create this judgment?
Him falsely claiming he is the inventor of Bitcoin and then aggressively pursuing anyone via courts and legal threats who said he was not.
Threatening anyone who claimed he was lying *in court*! Either he is a truthful bloke OR he is a courageous liar.
A long case financed By Jack Dorsey and others https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/feb/04/case-back...