Kleman V Wright Trail Verdict:
Witness Testimony:
BDO Case:
Bitcoin As Turing Complete:
Early Bitcoin Forks:
Since inception of BTC, after the hard fork from the original Bitcoin protocol, the mysterious creator of Bitcoin has been portrayed as a inhumane, God-like figure. This has led to speculation around BTC enthusiasts that Satoshi Nakamoto, “can not possibly be human”.
However, in reality, Satoshi Nakamoto was just a very smart individual(s). An individual, or group of individuals whom created Bitcoin.
Here is all of the evidence that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
Kleman V Wright Trail Verdict:
The recent case around Kleman and Wright was based on Kleiman’s family accusing Wright of defrauding (passed) David Kleiman of 1.1 million mined Bitcoins and intellectual property rights. Furthermore, the cases added that Kleiman and Wright were friends, and collaborated on Bitcoin’s creation.
The Kleiman v Wright trial did not directly answer whether Dr. Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto, as this was implied from the outset, however it does provide substantial evidence that Craig was involved with the Bitcoin creation.
More specifically, the case, was about whether or not there was a partnership between Dr. Wright and David Kleiman to launch Bitcoin, with the plaintiff producing forged emails in an attempt to imply as much.
The jury didn’t buy it, and they found that Craig Wright owed $0 to the estate of his late friend. However, the trial produced yet more evidence that Craig Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto.
Witness Testimony:
Gavin Andresen, the original lead developer of Bitcoin who had personal interactions with Satoshi, testified under oath that he still believes Dr. Wright is the man behind the pseudonym.
He mentioned that Wright signed several early blocks of his choosing with the Nakamoto keys on computers he was convinced had not been tampered or messed with.
Andresen mentioned that the private key signings were “more likely than not” legitimate.
In addition, adding towards the conclusion that Craig is Satoshi, is some evidence from Craig’s uncle. Wright’s uncle, Mr Donald Lynam, testified that his nephew had shown him copies of the Bitcoin white paper and that he had run an early node when Bitcoin was being set up.
Wright’s uncle, Mr Donald Lynam stated that he was sure the paper he saw was referencing Bitcoin, and went into details about his nephew’s childhood & relationship Craig has with Bitcoin.
“His deposition was a fascinating look into Dr. Wright’s formative years, which included a strong relationship with his grandfather, a cryptographer during World War II, and a lifelong interest in the types of technical subjects one would need to understand in order to create Bitcoin.”
To validify any previous claims, there is evidence and testimony from Stefan Mathews who speaks about his relationship and encounters with Craig Wright.
According to Matthews, his discussions with Dr. Wright in the early and middle parts of 2000s involved a variety of concepts and techniques related to security components and economics modelling around digital cash and digital gold.
Matthews mentioned that, “these were highly fragmented discussions,”. “I never thought much about it until he [Craig Wright] started to bring things together.”
Matthews explains that, “The paper was very closely worded in recollection to the final paper [Bitcoin White Paper]. It talked about peer to peer electronic cash. It certainly referenced that in the form of Bitcoin.” Matthews’ first recollection of the Bitcoin White Paper was a version that came in a USB stick that Dr. Wright handed over to him to read. Matthews said this all under oath.
Matthews, who was CEO of a public company then, said his relationship with Dr. Wright took the form of a business advisor sometime in 2014—although he had no keen interest in Bitcoin at that time.
Matthews recalls that the business roadmap with Craig was interrupted suddenly after the media exposed Craig as Satoshi. “It changed the way we thought about things and we came up with, you know, we’ve got to get in front of this.”
BDO Case:
BDO is an international network of public accounting, tax, consulting and business advisory firms which provide professional services under the name of BDO. BDO is the fifth largest accounting network globally.
During a recent trial between Kleman, and Wright, the defence also provide meeting minutes from Dr Wright’s former employer – namely BDO. Craig worked at BDO as an auditor, in which he described his ambition to create and launch an electronic cash system. During thie period, Craig referred to the system as a “TimeChains”, however there is evidence to state that Craig was talking about Bitcoin before it was actually released.
An appealing piece of information came to light during the trial between Kleman and Wright. Namely the fact that during Craig Wright’s examination, there was a document in which mentioned a “P2P e-cash” system. To add, Dr. Wright says he originally had an idea for a system like this in 1998.
Dr. Wright said he tried to pitch the idea of P2P cash to BDO, and that he had a meeting with Allan Granger from BDO in which they set the delivery timeline for the Bitcoin project. However, Dr. Wright said BDO ultimately did not accept his proposal to create the P2P e-cash.
“I was proposing something that later became Bitcoin,” said Dr. Wright.
Bitcoin As Turing Complete:
The arguement about Bitcoin being turing complete has been prevalent for multiple years now. This was first highlighted during the well known exchange and debate between Craig Wright & Nick Szabo. Nicholas Szabo is a computer scientist, legal scholar, and cryptographer known for his research in digital contracts and digital currency. This debate between Craig and Nick Szabo took place during November 2015.
Firstly, during this encounter, Szabo appeared bemused and dismissive of the fact that Bitcoin is Turing complete. Dr. Wright said control loops in Forth (the language upon which Bitcoin Script is based) could handle a looping function separate to the Forth code.
Turing complete refers to a machine that, given enough time and memory along with the necessary instructions, can solve computational problems, regardless of how complex.
To explain, before modern day computers, Alan Turing hypothesized that there would one day be a computer that could solve any problem. This became known as the Turing Machine, and is still common terminology used today. Moreover, a programming language is considered to be Turing Complete when it can replicate a Turing Machine through running any program or solving any problem that a Turing Machine could run or solve. If a device is not able to do this, then it is Turing Incomplete.
Szabo argued that if the loop couldn’t be performed in the original code then it wasn’t Turing complete. Wright countered that the only way of writing such a code would be on the “machine” itself—suggesting that attempting to do so, as Ethereum has, would render the system dysfunctional and unscalable.
“This would be a good topic for you to write a paper on, because that’s uncertainly an unconventional view that you have,” Szabo said in response to Craig’s claims.
Dr. Wright acknowledges they are correct in the respect that BTC is not Turing-complete, they ignore the reality of Bitcoin SV, the true implementation of Bitcoin as set out in the original Bitcoin whitepaper. Craig Wright specifically stated and has proved that Bitcoin SV is Turing complete, therefore disputing any previous concerns by Szabo.
Dr. Wright stated that, “unfortunately, a major problem stems from a lack of understanding of many common terms today. Turing completeness does not require an infinite tape, and it was not an infinite tape that Turing mentioned in his paper; it was an unbounded system. Importantly, you cannot have a Turing machine with an infinite tape rather than an unbounded tape—by definition. An infinite tape is not related to a problem that can be computed.”
Overall, there seems to be overwhelming evidence of Craig Wright being Satoshi – the creator of Bitcoin. Whilst the BTC community have labelled Satoshi as a speculative, God-like figure, in reality Satoshi was just a very clever individual(s), whom created a new invention.
Early Bitcoin Forks:
A Bitcoin Fork is a phenomenon in which occurs when a disagreement is apparent within a community. Often disagreements are present due to issues over speed, transactions fees, and block-size. Within the Bitcoin community, there have been many hard forks leading to the creation of BSV, BTC & BCH. However, the most important forks occurred during the inception phases of Bitcoin, after debates focusing on the size of the blocks & whether this block-size should increase to cater towards higher transactability.
The block-size war started with the first comment towards Satoshi Nakamoto when the Whitepaper was released. Satohsi posited forward the argument, back in 2008, that Bitcoin would solve the double-spend issues via a peer-to-peer cash system.
James Donald elicited the first comments & debates surrounding Bitcoin, & pushed forward scepticism in regards to the necessity for an increasing block-size. The argument pushed forward was that large blocks can not scale – instead everyone will need to run their own nodes for decentralisation and security.
Kurt mentioned to Christian how some of the most vital debates surrounding the block-size wars came out of the first few days of “Satoshi Nakamoto setting the fool straight” in regards to the sceptics of the original Bitcoin protocol. Kurt strongly went on to mention how all of these axioms in which BTC maximalists posit forward in regards to security and decentralisation have all been debunked within the first few days of Satoshi releasing the original Whitepaper.
Despite the fact Satoshi Nakamoto has been idealised as a speculative, deity-like figure, Kurt mentions how often the BTC community disregards all of the original comments made by Satoshi. This is a phenomena that can be seen throughout history, with figures such as Martin Luther King & Nelson Mandela. This is because how often these figures, in which have now passed away, have been turned into figures that often conflict with the original views that were posited forward.
Kurt mentioned how the toxicity surrounding Satoshi being wrong or right had become uncontrollable by 2016, and lead to hate attacks on opposing parties and their members.
