Re: [新聞] 比特幣之父訴訟：被告判賠 1 億美元卻樂

http://tinyurl.com/yfjwv2kp

這篇英文之前就想 PO 在板上,
我懶得翻了,
去看原文就知道了.

Craig Wright Attempts to 'Reveal the Origin' of Satoshi Nakamoto's Name

The Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit continues following the plaintiff’s request to
Judge Reinhart asking him to overrule Craig Wright’s recent objections.
Wright’s council has responded in a joint discovery memorandum asking for
access to data tied to David Kleiman’s 15 computers. Wright has also
requested any documentation tethered to Ira Kleiman’s (Dave’s brother) real
estate transactions between April 1, 2013 to the present. Following the courtrequests, Wright has shown the public a time-stamped document that ostensiblyindicates the origin of Satoshi Nakamoto’s name.

Also read: 23 Days Until a Bonded Courier Supposedly Delivers Keys to $8
Billion in BTC

Joint Discovery Filing Shows Wright Wants Access to Data Recovered From Dave’s Electronic Devices and Ira’s Real Estate Transaction Records

The high-profile lawsuit that involves the family of the deceased Dave
Kleiman and self-proclaimed Bitcoin inventor Craig Wright continues to unfoldtoward the end of 2019. Dave Kleiman’s brother, Ira Kleiman, claims Wright
tampered with Dave’s bitcoin inheritance and intellectual property.
News.Bitcoin.com has been covering the story and on December 16, Kleiman’s
lawyer Velvel Freedman asked the court to overrule Wright’s recent
objections. The following day, a joint discovery memorandum was published
giving more insight into this mysterious lawsuit over billions of dollars
worth of bitcoin. The memorandum disclosed that Wright’s legal team is
requesting “immediate access to the data recovered from Dave’s electronic
devices.” Wright believes that Dave had at least 15 electronic devices and
thinks that Ira threw one of them out. The memorandum alleged that Ira “
formatted and deleted data” so he could make space for his photos and movie
files.

“Ira continued using those devices up until March 18, 2019, which is at
least one year after he filed this lawsuit,” Wright’s council detailed. The
defendant’s joint discovery statement added it was very important to access
Dave’s data as it could “shed light on the extent and location of Dave’s
bitcoin holdings.” According to the memorandum, Wright had experts analyze
images of Dave’s devices and they were “able to recover some of that data.”
In addition to the data request, Wright has asked for documentation related
to “any real estate transactions by Ira Kleiman from April 1, 2013, to the
present.” The filing notes that Ira was never wealthy but in February of
2014, after Wright had allegedly told Ira to preserve Dave’s electronic
devices, Ira bought a house with $400,000 in cash. The filing noted that
Wright is entitled to find out whether or not Ira sold Dave’s bitcoin to
finance his home purchase.

The plaintiffs replied to the real estate transaction request and said the
defendant’s request is “based on pure speculation.” The Kleiman estate
believes it’s not relevant and there’s no evidence to suggest that Ira
purchased a home with his deceased brother’s bitcoin assets. Kleiman’s
council further remarked that the request was an “unnecessary invasion of Ira’s privacy.” Wright has also produced a list of people and companies that
are believed to have some connections with Wright’s electronic device data
and also may have had communications with the plaintiffs. But Kleiman’s
attorney called the request a “laundry list of individuals and entities that
Dr. Wright believes are connected to an alleged hack of his computer devices.” Kleiman’s lawyer added that Wright has never produced evidence in court
that his computer devices were hacked.

Wright Wants to Know if the Plaintiffs Communicated With BTC Miners, Core
Developers, and Members of Blockstream

The joint discovery memorandum also shows that Wright’s legal team has
requested any communications between the plaintiffs and Greg Maxwell, the
Twitter account ‘Contrarian,’ members of Blockstream, members of the
Bitcoin Core development team, and any mining pools that mostly mine BTC. Theplaintiff’s response to the communication request stressed that the demand
was a “fishing expedition” and many of the requested individuals “are
known detractors of Dr. Wright.” Kleiman’s council added:

Whatever disputes Dr. Wright may have with these individuals is not relevant
to any claim or defense in this matter.

Furthermore, Wright told the court that he plans to bring Ramona Watts, Wright’s wife, to testify as a witness. “Despite this, Craig refuses to make Ms.
Watts available for deposition prior to the discovery cut off,” the
plaintiffs complained. Additionally, Kleiman’s council had served Wright
with a Production and Interrogatories request in regard to patents Wright mayhave that could have stemmed from his business partnership with Dave Kleiman.The plaintiffs’ request wants information concerning patents held by Nchain,
but Wright’s legal team has “responded with a series of boilerplate
objections.”

Wizsec Research: ‘Looks Like Craig Showing off Another Bad Forgery’
After the filing on December 17, Wright did another candid interview with
Modern Consensus. During the interview, Wright allegedly unveiled the origin
behind the Satoshi Nakamoto monicker. He held up a piece of paper and told
the Modern Consensus reporter that he was digging up old documents. The papercontains “the origin of where I chose the name Satoshi,” Wright said. The
document shows a JSTOR academic journal database editorial about Tominaga
Nakamoto from the Monumenta Nipponica. The timestamp on the document suggeststhat the recorded date was well before the whitepaper published on Halloween
2008.

In fact, the JSTOR academic paper Wright showed the camera has a date that
reads May 1, 2008, at approximately 11:17 am. “Satoshi, the actual meaning
is ‘intelligent learning.’ It’s about ancestors, smart and wise ancestors
— You’ve got the concept of blocks and whatever goes before, instructs what
comes out but that’ll all come out,” Wright said during the interview. As
soon as the ‘exclusive’ interview was published, the greater crypto
community found a bunch of flaws with Wright’s story.

The first thing that was discovered was the last two digits from the
timestamp looked as though they were tampered with. The weird-looking date
was revealed by the Twitter account @seekingsatoshi which also stated: “The
complexity level of his document fraud is consistently very low, seems there
is little thought or effort put into it.” The security specialists Wizsec
also ripped Wright’s latest document apart, when the researchers explained
that the cover sheet was purportedly downloaded in 2008. However, the cover
sheet format shown by Wright was “only used from mid-2011 through early 2015.” Wizsec also noticed the “clumsy font mismatch in the edited timestamp.”

Additionally, Wizsec asked how Craig could have known about the obscure
article unless he was really Satoshi, but quickly pointed out that the
article is easy to find when searching for “historical Nakamotos” using
Google. The latest JSTOR academic document Wright revealed to the public has
not swayed the crypto community in the least and researchers like Wizsec
concluded the JSTOR document “looks like Craig showing off yet another bad
forgery.”

What do you think about the ongoing Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit? What do you
think about the latest document Wright shared? Let us know what you think
about this subject in the comments section below.

Image credits: Shutterstock, Bloomberg, Wiki Commons, Fair Use, Pixabay,
Modern Consensus, and the Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit.

※ 引述《saiulbb (#KEEP MLB GREAT!)》之銘言：
: ※ [本文轉錄自 Gossiping 看板 #1Xhr0ei_ ]
: 作者: saiulbb (#KEEP MLB GREAT!) 看板: Gossiping
: 標題: [新聞] 比特幣之父訴訟：被告判賠 1 億美元卻樂
: 時間: Tue Dec 7 20:14:30 2021
: 備註請放最後面 違者新聞文章刪除
: 1.媒體來源:
: ※ 例如蘋果日報、自由時報（請參考版規下方的核准媒體名單）
: 科技新報
: 2.記者署名:
: ※ 若新聞沒有記者名字或編輯名字，請勿張貼，否則會被水桶14天
: ※ 外電至少要有來源或編輯 如:法新社
: 作者 Chen Kobe | 發布日期 2021 年 12 月 07 日 16:40 | 分類 Fintech , 加密貨幣: , 區塊鏈 Blockchain
: 3.完整新聞標題:
: ※ 標題沒有完整寫出來 ---> 依照板規刪除文章
: 比特幣之父訴訟：被告判賠 1 億美元卻樂歪，關鍵在 110 萬顆比特幣
: 4.完整新聞內文:
: ※ 社論特稿都不能貼！違者刪除（政治類水桶3個月)，貼廣告也會被刪除喔！可詳看版規: 堪稱加密貨幣世紀判決的遺產爭奪案，今天有了判決結果，自稱比特幣之父「中本聰」的: 克雷格‧萊特因侵占資產被判賠 1 億美元，萊特卻對判決結果非常滿意，因為這可能讓: 他「中本聰」身分獲得法院認證。
: 澳洲電腦工程師克雷格‧萊特（Craig Wright）可能贏得人生最重要的訴訟，雖然他被判: 賠 1 億美元，卻贏得更重要的東西，究竟是怎麼回事？
: 萊特 2016 年在網路宣稱自己就是比特幣之父中本聰（Nakamoto Satoshi），引起幣圈譁: 然，但因他似乎無法動用中本聰的比特幣錢包，未能獲得信任。
: 報導顯示，比特幣發明人中本聰可能是一個人，也可能是一個團隊，當中本聰消失後，人: 們唯一能看到的，就只有他留在比特幣錢包裡的 110 萬顆比特幣，讓這名傳奇人物始終: 穩居世界富豪榜。
: 中本聰之謎，卻因為一個人死亡而露出端倪。
: 2013 年，比特幣網路早期開發者大衛‧克雷曼（David Kleiman）過世後，弟弟向聯邦法: 院提告，指控萊特侵占克雷曼的遺產，包括比特幣相關開發資料、智慧財產權，以及神祕: 的 110 萬顆比特幣。這才讓人開始有點相信，萊特與中本聰的關係。
: 原告認為，比特幣是由萊特與克雷曼共同發明，兩個人合在一起才是「中本聰」，因此克: 雷曼應享有中本聰一半的資產，包括比特幣、相關文件與智慧財產權。
: 萊特及辯方律師則宣稱，比特幣是萊特獨力開發，因此這些資產不必分給克雷曼。經過五: 星期法庭攻防戰，陪審團認定，雙方沒有商業夥伴關係，因此原告並未擁有所稱資產的分: 額，包括比特幣與其他軟體類的智慧財產權。
: 不過法院認為，萊特侵占兩人合資公司 W&K Info Defense Research 的智慧財產權，包: 括軟體和挖礦用電腦等，因此需賠償 W&K 公司 1 億美元，但無需賠償克雷曼家族。
: 換言之，假設雙方真的共同持有「中本聰」錢包，那現在這錢包的所有權就等於歸給萊特: ，萊特也表示他會在近期捐出一部分比特幣為慈善用途，同時證明他就是中本聰。
: 110 萬顆比特幣現值相當於 540 億美元，加上原告要求的其他賠償約 1,260 億美元，萊: 特只需賠償 1 億美元就完結，難怪他一點都不難過。
: 更諷刺的是，W&K 這家公司當初是由萊特與克雷曼共同創立，目前由三個人共同持有，包: 括官司原告克雷曼的弟弟、萊特前妻及萊特現任妻子，各自持三分之一股權。因此判決結: 果出爐後，萊特立刻嘲諷克雷曼恐怕拿不到錢，因為他的勢力占公司三分之二。
: 萊特近年創立的比特幣 SV（BSV），也在判決出爐後「驗明血統」大漲，目前幣值到
: 147 美元。但更讓人在意的是，萊特是否真的握有中本聰錢包的控制權？那 110 萬顆沉: 睡的比特幣，會否突然甦醒呢？
: Craig Wright Found Not Liable for Breach of Kleiman Business Partnership
: Miami jury rules in favor of Craig Wright, who claimed to invent bitcoin
: （首圖來源：影片截圖）
: 5.完整新聞連結 (或短網址):
: ※ 當新聞連結過長時，需提供短網址方便網友點擊
: https://finance.technews.tw/2021/12/07/craig-wright-law-suit-bitcoin/
: 6.備註:
: ※ 一個人一天只能張貼一則新聞(以天為單位)，被刪或自刪也算額度內，超貼者水桶，請注意
: ※ 備註請勿張貼三日內新聞(包含連結、標題等)
: 羨慕！540億美元只要賠1億美元就能處理了，話說Craig Wright真的是中本聰本人嗎？
--