Written by :
Published on :
It was a packed London court room, and with good reason. The battle over the identity of Bitcoin’s inventor—and the future of the entire digital asset industry, including bitcoin —will be decided.
The Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) consists of crypto exchange power houses CoinBase and Kraken. They sued Dr. Craig Wright, a British Australian computer scientist, in the hopes that a court will determine—and declare—that Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous inventor of Bitcoin.
It was just two years ago that a Miami jury found that Dr. Wright was indeed Satoshi Nakomoto, but some industry observers appear to have brushed off that notion.
"I feel completely vindicated," Wright said in a statement immediately following that December 2021 verdict that rocked the crypto world. "My original invention is coming back."
Jordan Lucas of CoinGeek broke down how Day 1 went down.
Jonathan Hough KC, who is the barrister representing COPA, kicked off proceedings with COPA’s opening arguments.
Hough KC called the case of Dr. Wright a “elaborate narrative supported by forgery on an industrial scale.” He called this conduct ‘deadly serious,’ having allegedly used this narrative to pursue claims valued at billions of pounds. It is this conduct which Houch KC says is the reason COPA sued Wright in the first place: “to put a stop to this conduct.”
Hough KC also said that COPA intends to mount its case on three pillars: the volume of forged documents that are in evidence in the case; lack of successful attempts to offer proof that he is Satoshi; and that his account of how he devised Bitcoin conflicts with established facts.
For Dr. Wright, Lord Grabiner KC appeared in the afternoon to deliver his first salvo. Lord Grabiner is head of one of the country’s most reputable barristers’ chambers in One Essex Court and is a storied academic administrator, including at Clare College Cambridge and the London School of Economics.
He told Judge Mellor and the gathered crowd that there is a fundamental philosophical difference between Dr. Wright on the one hand and his opponents on the other. Dr. Wright insists that Bitcoin should be precisely as described in the white paper, in particular that transactions are pseudonymous rather than anonymous.
He also pointed out that if COPA is right and Dr. Wright is not Satoshi, then the Judge should ask himself: why hasn’t the real Satoshi come forward? They could have easily confidentially identified themselves to the parties in the case. This was a particularly forceful point given that COPA’s attorney opened his statements by pointing out the sheer amount of money involved in these cases and the individuals that are supposedly being ruined by them.
Wright says he is prepared to provide proof of his identity. He had offered a settlement agreement just days prior to the start of the trial.
Strap in for the ride.
- Aaron Goldstein, Gambling911.com
