Week 16. The curious case of Dr Craig Wright
Dr Craig Wright and the ongoing Bitcoin identity debate
The mystery surrounding Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, is arguably one of the most captivating puzzles of the 21st century. Bitcoin did not appear spontaneously; it emerged from an intricate web of cryptographic brilliance, economic theory, and programming expertise. The Bitcoin white paper, first published in 2008, represents a level of sophistication that likely points to either an extraordinary individual or a small group of elite minds (Nakamoto, 2008). The identity of Satoshi has remained shrouded in anonymity, sparking endless speculation, legal challenges, and philosophical debates.
Among the many claimants to the title of Satoshi Nakamoto, Dr Craig Steven Wright has become the most high-profile and polarising. Whether viewed as a visionary, a fraud, or something in between, Dr Wright’s tenacity in pursuing legal recognition as the creator of Bitcoin cannot be denied. His involvement in high-stakes litigation, including the recent Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright (2024), which I was captivated by, viewing the entire hearing remotely, I was fascinated. He’s clearly an incredibly complex figure, intelligent, relentless, and has transformed the courtroom into the primary battleground over the Satoshi identity. Importantly, court rulings, rather than public speculation or media frenzy, remain the most reliable source of clarity in this ongoing saga (High Court of Justice, 2024).
Few individuals on Earth could plausibly have authored the Bitcoin white paper, and Dr Wright’s deep entrenchment in the technical and ideological aspects of early Bitcoin development raises questions about the extent of his involvement.
In the judgment of Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2024] EWHC 1809 (Ch), Mr Justice Mellor noted that Dr. Wright's claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, if accepted, would have significant implications, including potential control over substantial Bitcoin holdings.
Legal Cases Involving Dr Craig Wright
1, Tulip Trading Ltd v Van Der Laan & Ors (2021-Ongoing)
The case involves Dr Craig Wright’s company, Tulip Trading Ltd, which alleged that a group of Bitcoin software developers owed fiduciary and tortious duties to re-enable access to digital assets lost following a purported hack. The claim was initially struck out by the High Court; however, the Court of Appeal overturned that decision, ruling that Tulip’s arguments raised a “serious issue to be tried.” Importantly, the Court of Appeal did not determine that developers do owe fiduciary duties, only that the matter should proceed to trial so that factual issues, such as the true nature of Bitcoin’s decentralisation, can be examined. Lord Justice Birss noted that if decentralised governance is indeed a “myth,” there may be a legitimate case for fiduciary obligations.
2. Wright v. Coinbase and Kraken (2023–Ongoing)
In 2023, Dr Wright filed lawsuits against cryptocurrency exchanges Coinbase and Kraken in the High Court of England and Wales. He alleges that these platforms have infringed on his intellectual property rights by misrepresenting Bitcoin Core (BTC) as the original Bitcoin, asserting that his own Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) is the true continuation of the original protocol. These cases are currently in the pre-trial phase .
3. Wright v. Granath ("Hodlonaut") (2019–2022)
In 2019, Dr Wright filed a defamation lawsuit in the UK against Norwegian bitcoiner "Hodlonaut" (real name: Magnus Granath) over tweets doubting Dr Wright's claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto. Granath pre-emptively filed a lawsuit in Norway seeking a declaratory judgment. In October 2022, the Norwegian court ruled in favour of Granath, stating that Dr Wright had not proven his claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto .
4. Wright v. McCormack (2019–2022)
In 2019, Dr Wright sued podcaster Peter McCormack in the UK for libel after McCormack called Dr Wright a fraud for claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto. In 2022, the High Court found that Dr Wright had advanced false evidence and awarded him only £1 in damages .
5. Kleiman v. Wright (2018–2021)
In February 2018, the estate of Dave Kleiman sued Dr Wright in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The lawsuit alleged that Dr Wright defrauded Kleiman's estate of billions of dollars' worth of bitcoins and intellectual property rights related to blockchain technology. In late 2021, a jury found Dr Wright liable for conversion, awarding $100 million in damages to W&K Info Defense Research LLC, a company associated with Kleiman. Dr Wright did not appeal the verdict .
6. COPA v. Wright (2021–2024)
In 2021, the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) sought a legal declaration in the UK High Court that Wright was not the author of the Bitcoin white paper. After a trial in early 2024, Justice James Mellor ruled in March 2024 that Dr Wright was not Satoshi Nakamoto, stating that Dr Wright had engaged in the deliberate production of false documents to support his claims. The written judgment, released in May 2024, detailed extensive forgeries and falsehoods presented by Dr Wright .
7. Contempt of Court Proceedings (2024)
Despite the March 2024 ruling, Dr Wright continued to assert his claim as Satoshi Nakamoto and initiated a $1.15 trillion lawsuit against Bitcoin developers and Square (now Block) in October 2024. This action violated a court order prohibiting him from making such claims. In December 2024, Justice Mellor found Dr Wright in contempt of court, sentencing him to a one-year prison term, suspended for two years, and ordering him to pay £145,000 in legal costs. The judge noted Dr Wright's extensive and repeated falsehoods and forgeries
These cases collectively highlight the extensive legal challenges and controversies surrounding Dr Craig Wright's claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin.
After multiple rulings against him, especially in the UK, it’s hard to see any court now suddenly reversing course and legitimising his claims.
Justice Mellor’s judgment in COPA v. Wright was thorough and well-reasoned, and given Justice Mellor’s reputation, his ruling carries significant weight.
Other courts (like in Norway and the US) have also cast doubt on Wright’s credibility.
If a future court ruled in Dr Wright’s favour, it would create a legal contradiction that could undermine previous cases, it’s unlikely any judge would want to go down that road without overwhelming new evidence.
Then why wont he admit defeat?!
If Dr Wright was just a random fraudster, surely he would have disappeared by now. Instead, he continues to double down and fund legal battles, which suggests
He Truly Believes He’s Satoshi
Some argue Wright is caught in a deep psychological loop where he has convinced himself of his own story.
He doesn’t back down because he sees himself as the rightful creator, even if he can’t provide the ultimate proof.
He Has a Different Agenda
Even if he’s not Satoshi, his legal battles keep him relevant in the Bitcoin space.
His claims could be part of a bigger financial or ideological play, controlling the Bitcoin narrative could have economic or political advantages.
His Wealth and Legal Strategy Suggest a Backer
How did he amass his wealth? His known career wouldn’t normally generate hundreds of millions of dollars.
Does he have secret BTC holdings? Or is a third party funding him for reasons we don’t fully understand?
He Wants to Win, Even if He’s Not Satoshi
He might see Bitcoin’s legal identity as up for grabs.
Even if he can’t prove he created Bitcoin, if he wins key legal fights, he could still gain control over certain aspects of its intellectual property.
If he’s not Satoshi, why has he been able to build such a compelling (albeit flawed) narrative?
If he is Satoshi, why hasn’t he provided the one piece of evidence that would shut down all doubts?
At this point, the courts seem set on their view, Dr Wright is not Satoshi. But history has a funny way of surprising us, and the real story of Bitcoin’s creation may still have layers we don’t yet understand. Whether it’s about power, money, ideology, or something else entirely, the fact that Dr Wright won’t walk away could suggest there may be deeper motivations at play.
The way Bitcoin is controlled (or not controlled) has massive implications for the financial world, so if someone could legally stake a claim over it, that would be a game-changer. Maybe Dr Wright’s battle isn’t really about proving he’s Satoshi, it’s about shifting the legal and political landscape around Bitcoin itself.
It’s incredible to believe someone could be that entrenched in the story without playing a significant role in Bitcoin’s creation. The why and endgame are indeed the most fascinating parts of this whole saga. If he was involved, the bigger picture of what he’s trying to accomplish becomes much more important than just proving his identity.
He might not care about the public's perception of being Satoshi but rather about how these legal battles shape the future of cryptocurrency and digital ownership. Maybe he’s in it to secure control or steer Bitcoin’s narrative in a way that aligns with his vision, be it financial, ideological, or regulatory.
Would you bet on this mystery ever being solved, or do you think it will always remain a debate?
References
Nakamoto, S. (2008) Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. [online] Available at: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Tulip Trading Ltd v Van Der Laan & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 83 (Court of Appeal (Civil Division)) Available at: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Tulip-v-Van-Der-Laan-judgment-030223.pdf
Wright v Coinbase Global Inc & Ors [2023] EWHC 1893 (Ch). Available at: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Wright-v-Coinbase-Global-judgment-250723-2.pdfCaseMine+3Courts and Tribunals Judiciary+3vLex+3
Wright v McCormack [2022] EWHC 2671 (QB). Available at: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Wright-v-McCormack-Judgment.pdfCourts and Tribunals Judiciary+1Practical Law+1
Wright v Granath (2022) Oslo District Court, Case No: 19-076844TVI-OTIR/01. https://coingeek.com/granath-v-wright-oslo-verdict-hodlonaut-not-liable-for-defamation-in-norway/
Wright v Granath: Satoshi Trial 2022 begins in Norway. CoinGeek. Available at: https://coingeek.com/granath-v-wright-satoshi-trial-2022-begins-in-norway/
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2024] EWHC 1198 (Ch). Available at: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/COPA-v-Wright-Judgment.pdfbitcoindefense.org+5Courts and Tribunals Judiciary+5Courts and Tribunals Judiciary+5
Kleiman v Wright, No. 9:18-cv-80176-BB (S.D. Fla. 2021). Available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flsdce/9%3A2018cv80176/521536/796/Justia Law+1Justia Law+1
Reuters (2024) 'Self-proclaimed bitcoin inventor in contempt of court over $1.2 trillion UK lawsuit', 19 December. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/self-proclaimed-bitcoin-inventor-contempt-court-over-12-trillion-uk-lawsuit-2024-12-19/
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2024] EWHC 3315 (Ch), High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, 19 December 2024. Available at: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/crypto-open-patent-alliance-v-dr-craig-steven-wright/
Law Society Gazette, (2024) Fake Satoshi gets suspended sentence for ‘flagrant’ contempt of anti-suit injunction, By Michael Cross, Available at: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/fake-satoshi-gets-suspended-sentence-for-flagrant-contempt-in-bitcoin-case/5121871.article
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2024] EWHC 1809 (Ch), High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, 16 July 2024. Available at: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2024/1809.html
