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 court
requests, Wright has shown the public a time-stamped document that ostensibly
indicates 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 unfold
toward 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. The
plaintiff’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 may
have 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 paper
contains “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 suggests
that 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