Ramblings of a Tampa engineer
Bitcoin vs Altcoins
Photo by André François McKenzie / Unsplash

The Satoshi Nakamoto is a pseudonym of an unknown individual who, in short, created Bitcoin. Research for years has occurred with profiles, source code and any bit of evidence to try and discover who this person is/was.

This led to investigations by the hive-mind of the world and even journalists trying to uncover the person behind the pseudonym, but nothing has gained more steam than the ongoing (June 2019) court case of Kleiman vs Wright. The full 38 page report can be found here.

In short, Kleiman and Wright worked together prior to and after the inception of Bitcoin. They met sometime around 2003 in online forums. They accumulated some unknown large amount of bitcoins from 2009 to 2013. Rewards for mining a new block in 2009 to 2013 was 50 BTC per block. That of course halves itself every 210,00 blocks, which occurs roughly every 4 years. This means that today rewards are only 12.5 BTC per block mined.

Graph showing rewards dropping from 50 to 25 to 12.5

So it was easier in 2013 and prior to quickly amass a Bitcoin collection, which explains why this case even exists. As it is rumored that over one million of Bitcoins would be mined. However, Kleiman passed away and it wasn't pretty.

In April 2013, Dave was found dead in his home. The scene of Kleiman’s death
was gruesome. His body was decomposing, there were wheelchair tracks of
blood and fecal matter, open bottles of alcohol, and a loaded handgun next to
him. A bullet hole in his mattress was found. The exact details surrounding his
death remain unknown.
Page 13, Point 50 - Kleiman v. Wright

This is important, because in February of 2011 Kleiman & Wright formed a company to specialize in Bitcoin mining / Software development / Research. This company was the complicated legal matters that decided who owned the Bitcoins that were mined. We can see from court proceedings that it looked like a 50% split between Kleiman & Wright.

That is until Craig Wright allegedly created three fraudulent documents to create a paper trail that all 50% of Kleiman's Bitcoin rights were to be transferred to himself.

a. 2011 contract titled “Intellectual Property License Funding Agreement” (the “2011 IP Agreement”) (Ex. 10);
b. 2012 contract titled “Deed of Loan” (the “2012 Deed of Loan”) (Ex. 10);
c. 2013 contract titled “Contract for the Sale of Shares of a Company Owning Business” (the “2013 W&K Sale Agreement”) (Ex. 4).
Page 20, Point 76 - Kleiman v. Wright

These documents through professional analysis seem fraudulent due to the following:

  • Signature computer generated
  • There are no witnesses or notary
  • The grammar and agreement don't make much sense
  • Some of the contracts conflict with each other
  • Factual errors with Bitcoin amounts
  • The contracts favor Craig so much

Basically, why would the deceased Kleiman weeks before his death haphazardly create such conflicting contracts with Craig in order to give away his assets? Unfortunately he isn't here to ask, but my thinking is what is what was presented - they were forged.

Around February 2014, Craig reached out to the family of Kleiman trying to explain that himself and Dave Kleiman created Bitcoin. This was apparently the first time the family heard of the friendship with Craig. Ira Kleiman became the heir of Dave position in the company and acted as the correspondence with Craig. However, Ira began learning about the strange contracts that basically relinquished all assets to Craig.

Ira reached out to Craig questioning this:

To keep Ira from going public, Craig promised Ira that he could be paid out of what was owed to Dave’s estate “based on what Dave and I had been arranging.” He then told Ira “October [2014 would be] the first payment.”
The payment never came. Craig blamed the delay on the ATO investigation and kept promising Ira he would see value when the investigation closed.
Page 31, Point 114-115  - Kleiman v. Wright

This is when things get weird, as October 2015 Craig went dark with correspondence with Ira along with Gizomodo & Wired publishing articles that Craig was Satoshi Nakamoto. As of today, those articles have been updated to retract that statement due to an abundance of fraudulent evidence.

However, Craig Wright himself is claiming to be the pseudonym responsible for creating Bitcoin, who hasn't been seen online in an official capacity since an email on April 23, 2011.

I've moved on to other things.  It's in good hands with Gavin and everyone.
Source - Email to Mike Hearn from Satoshi

The Internet is quite split on this topic with people both claiming aggressively that Craig is Satoshi Nakamoto. However, it is difficult to trust either as Craig Wright has positioned himself highly involved with Bitcoin SV, another iteration of the fabled Bitcoin currency. This means it is in the best interest of those involved with Bitcoin SV to stick with Craig to keep the currency healthy in terms of value.

Craig does this from his company "nChain", who continue to file for patents related to block-chain technology for which Bitcoin and many thrive from.

The Court Case

Now, switching topics we can look into the transcript of the proceedings from the case on June 28, 2019. This is a large 239 page PDF, but we can find some strange discussions among it.

Q: Well, let me get this straight. A company you didn't buy until 2014 is listed as a beneficiary of a trust document you claimed was formed in 2012?

A: No. You have put documents I don't recognize.

Q: Documents you produced in discovery?

A: Yes, from other machines in my organization.
Page 96 - 6/28/2019 Proceedings

A strange occurrence when a trust document lists a beneficiary of a company that wasn't purchased by Craig until 2014, but the trust document was made in 2012 apparently.

Q: Which is Satoshi Nakamoto?

A: Yes.

Q: I.e. Craig Wright?

A: Yes
Page 139 - 6/28/2019 Proceedings

This is the first time I noticed in an official record under oath that Craig Wright said he was Satoshi Nakamoto. Things continue to get weird with the witness (Wright) denying evidence his team produced.

Q: Okay. We were at plaintiffs' exhibit 9, Dr. Wright, and we were looking at the last page --

A: This is Craig Steven Wright dot something. This is not my blog, which was GSE secure -- this is a separate blog.

Q: You produced it to me, Dr. Wright.

A: It was in files that we had. It doesn't mean it's my blog
Page 149 - 6/28/2019 Proceedings

As I continue to read this, it just hurts to read. The witness knows the question being asked, but instead defers to some technicality to avoid any information.

I'm no legal specialist, but it looks like there are two avenues of this case. The first being trying to prove contempt by proving that Wright willfully ignored the court's request for information and the second disapproving the documents that allegedly looked forged.

THE COURT: Dr. Wright, you throw another document in my courtroom --

THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry, Your Honor.

THE COURT: -- you will be in handcuffs so fast yourhead will spin.  Do you understand me?
Page 47 - 6/28/2019 Proceedings

It seems during the case, Wright threw a document across the room in disgust claiming it was a fake document. Seems like Craig lost his cool for a bit.

Following this case is just so annoying. There are plenty of ways to instantly silence any debates, which could not be argued. However, Wright refuses to do so instead putting forward documents that allegedly have been forged. This in my opinion just proves that he is a pathological liar, but we will know officially in a few short months as this case proceeds.

You’ve successfully subscribed to Connor Tumbleson
Welcome back! You’ve successfully signed in.
Great! You’ve successfully signed up.
Success! Your email is updated.
Your link has expired
Success! Check your email for magic link to sign-in.