Craig Wright, a controversial figure in the cryptocurrency world, has long claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin. However, his assertions have been met with skepticism and scrutiny from various quarters.
One significant aspect of this skepticism stems from Wright’s inability to provide concrete evidence of his alleged involvement in Bitcoin’s creation, including his failure to name individuals to whom he sent Bitcoin in the early days of the cryptocurrency’s development under the pseudonym “Satoshi.”
Craig Wright fails to name anyone he sent Bitcoin to as “Satoshi”
According to @bitnorbert on X, COPA requested Craig Wright to confirm if he had ever transferred BTC to anyone other than Hal Finney and Zooko Wilcox, ZCash’s co-founders.
Wright said that he had distributed Bitcoin to hundreds of people using a combination of his companies’ blockchain addresses, which were widely assumed to be owned by Satoshi Nakamoto. He said Zooko was not one of them, despite the cryptographer’s assertion that he had never received BTC from Satoshi.
When asked about the coins Satoshi distributed to “hundreds” of others, Wright stated that he does not “remember them all now.” Judge Edward James Mellor instructed Wright to pick only one, but he fell short.
Wright also faced questioning regarding a public blog post he allegedly signed to indicate he was Satoshi, which has subsequently been heavily challenged by academics. When questioned if “signing sessions” would be invalid proof if anyone other than Satoshi could obtain the private keys behind them, Wright responded, “Not at all.”
“You do not prove your identity by possessing stuff. You demonstrate your knowledge. Who are you? “What you create,” Wright explained.
Wright’s defense strategy, which includes his contention that identity verification should not be limited to cryptographic key possession but should instead hinge on knowledge and creation, is currently facing significant scrutiny.
Further complicating the trial are allegations of inconsistencies in his prior testimony and evidence submissions. Notwithstanding the efforts of Judge James Mellor to restore order, the ambiance of the courtroom remains tense as Wright’s credibility continues to be scrutinized.
Craig Wright fights back
Craig Wright lashed out on Tuesday at “experts” who “cannot verify their work” as he faced cross-examination in a trial over his claim to have invented Bitcoin, a claim the crypto industry has long accused him of failing to verify.
“I despise that.” I despise it,” Wright continued his furious outburst, until presiding Judge James Mellor intervened and urged the “woman in the back row,” who was “nodding and moving her head,” to “please keep calm” or face removal.
When asked by COPA counsel Jonathan Hough to agree that producing “a signed message” as planned to prove he was Satoshi would not have posed a security risk of the private keys in question being figured out by others, Wright responded: “The security risk is the security of my work, undermining the entire value of everything I’ve created. “Not that the key will be taken.”
The cross-examination lasted another full day, with Mellor intervening numerous times, including warning Wright that if he doesn’t answer a question, he will “assume” he doesn’t have an answer.
COPA attempted to point out flaws in Wright’s evidence and testimony from earlier trials. In one case, Wright revised his account about whether Dave Kleimann – who Wright previously said was important to the birth of Bitcoin but denied on Monday – was a trustee at Wright’s company Tulip Trading.
Wright will testify again on Wednesday, followed by a defense expert witness. The study will continue for a few more weeks.
Meanwhile, the courtroom drama heats up with each revelation, including Wright’s wife’s discovery of critical documents and his charges against key players in the crypto world. Amid the excitement, Wright’s allegation of having turned over keys to the Bitcoin code repository adds to the trial’s fascination.
