Australian Craig Wrigh, who claims the authorship of bitcoin, arrives at the High Court in London, February 5, 2024 (AFP/Archives/Daniel LEAL)
A British judge ruled Thursday that Australian Craig Wright, who claimed authorship of bitcoin, was not its creator, citing “overwhelming evidence” against him at the end of the trial opposing him to a sector association.
“Dr Wright is not the person who created the bitcoin system”, nor “the author of the initial versions of the bitcoin software”, declared Judge James Mellor at the close of the trial, explaining that he would detail his reasoning in his judgment, to come on an unspecified date.
The 53-year-old computer scientist and entrepreneur “is not the author of the bitcoin + white paper”, a text which details the founding principles of this cryptocurrency, nor the one who “operated under the pseudonym of Satoshi Nakamoto (the enigmatic developer known as the father of bitcoin, Editor’s note) during the period from 2008 to 2011”, insisted the judge.
For nearly a month and a half, the British High Court of Justice examined the assertions of the man his detractors nickname “Faketoshi” (for “false Satoshi”), who claimed intellectual property rights on this founding “white paper”. , as well as the code of this cryptocurrency.
– Charge of “perjury” –
“Doctor Wright failed to provide even a single verifiable and reliable document to support” his claims, argued Tuesday during the trial Jonathan Hough, the lawyer for the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (Copa ), an association which aims to eliminate patents on technologies linked to cryptocurrencies.
The Copa brings together heavyweights like the Coinbase exchange platform and the company Block, specializing in digital payments.
For nearly a month and a half, the British High Court of Justice examined the assertions of the man his detractors nickname “Faketoshi” (for “false Satoshi”), who claimed intellectual property rights on this founding “white paper”. , as well as on the code of the bitcoin cryptocurrency (AFP/Archives/Ozan KOSE)
Even a computer expert cited by Mr. Wright’s camp concluded that the original file of the founding text of bitcoin would have actually been produced in the OpenOffice software, and not via the LaTex document composition system as claimed by the Australian.
Copa “will ask after judgment” that British prosecutors consider criminal proceedings for “perjury and obstructing the course of justice” for having, according to it, falsified documents, explained the organization in its final arguments, consulted by AFP.
“The proof that his documents were consulted or even edited after the publication of the bitcoin + white paper + should not, in itself, lead the Court to conclude that they were deliberately falsified by Doctor Wright”, retorts for his shares his defense in his final arguments, transmitted to AFP.
On several occasions, Mr. Wright claimed that an unknown third party had sabotaged elements of his defense, like an email that Copa accuses him of having fabricated during the trial itself.
His lawyer, Anthony Grabiner, had argued that his client had the skills related to law, monetary transactions and IT consistent with those necessary to invent bitcoin.
During her testimony, Mr. Wright’s sister had for her part praised his attraction to Japanese culture, which could, according to her, explain the choice of the pseudonym Satoshi.
The outcome of this case will determine that of another, pitting Mr. Wright against 26 developers, individuals as well as companies like the Coinbase platform, which he accuses of having infringed on his intellectual property rights.
“This decision is a victory”, because it puts an end to the “lie” used by Mr. Wright “to harass and intimidate developers in the bitcoin community” for “more than eight years”, welcomed the AFP a Copa spokesperson.
“Satoshi understood the value of decentralization and built bitcoin in such a way that it could not be controlled by a single person or entity,” a spokesperson for the company reacted to AFP. Kraken platform, member of Copa and which was the subject of legal proceedings by Mr. Wright.
The Shoosmiths firm, which represents Mr. Wright, told AFP that it had no comment on its willingness or not to appeal the decision.
© 2024 AFP
Did you like this article ? Share it with your friends using the buttons below.
