coingeek.com
As the eyes of the world gaze on a London courtroom and watch the drama in COPA v Wright unfold, media reports explaining the build-up, story so far, and likely outcomes are beginning to surface.
As usual, most of them are well-written but full of half-truths, misunderstandings, biases, and, thus, likely incorrect conclusions drawn from faulty premises.
I recently read one such in-depth report by the Australian Financial Review. In this article, I’d like to address some of its points and correct the record on others.
Decent, but the emphasis is all wrong
It must be said that the AFR report was reasonably well-written and fun to read. It would have been a suspenseful, fascinating read akin to a mini mystery novel to someone unfamiliar with Dr. Craig Wright and his journey so far.
However, for one intimately familiar with the details of this saga, it came across as tired, only semi-informed, and edging towards bias. There were plenty of suggestions that Dr. Wright is a serial liar and potentially one of the world’s greatest hoaxers, and only a few almost dismissive suggestions that he is the most likely candidate to be the inventor of Bitcoin.
The report did an excellent job of digging into Dr. Wright’s childhood, his formative relationships with his grandfather and others, and his intentions for Bitcoin: to provide secure, almost fee-free payments for the world. However, it fell short in other essential areas: not explaining why Dr. Wright balked at publicly signing and selling his life work for a quick buck in 2016, failing to adequately explain his positions on why keys do not prove identity, and glossing over the fact that he has fought tooth and nail, at great expense and hassle, to restore Bitcoin.
Hints at the truth
In fairness, the AFR report wasn’t totally one-sided. There were hints at the truth throughout it, and, likely, the author is simply unfamiliar with Dr. Wright’s positions and his extensive body of work.
Covering how Bitcoin is a masterwork, it quoted security expert Dan Kaminsky when he said of Satoshi Nakamoto, “He was a world-class programmer with a deep understanding of the C++ programming language. He understands economics, cryptography, and peer-to-peer networking. Either there’s a team of people who works on this, or this guy’s a genius.” Unfortunately, the author did not mention that Dr. Wright is uniquely qualified to be the mastermind behind Bitcoin, holding degrees and credentials in all these fields and showing an unrivaled understanding of them and the Bitcoin protocol.
The article also only briefly mentions the history of the Bitcoin network, including why it split in 2017 and how far BTC has deviated from Bitcoin’s original purpose. It makes no mention at all of the thriving BSV ecosystem that has grown around Dr. Wright’s ideas about how Bitcoin should work, including scaling to 1.5 million transactions per second for fees at a fraction of a cent. If Dr. Wright was indeed a hoaxer, he’d be a strange one with an unrivaled understanding of Bitcoin and an inexplicable passion for making it succeed, even at great personal cost. This is not the usual modus operandi of scammers.
Again, regarding the Kleiman v Wright trial, the AFR report only touches upon the elements that suit the narrative. Nowhere does it mention how Kleiman himself said he knew his brother was working on digital cash, how Dr. Wright made a generous offer to the family to honor his late friend, or how the Kleiman estate had bona fide evidence of Dr. Wright’s involvement in Bitcoin that prompted Ira Kleiman to sue for half of the Satoshi coins. Kleiman sided with the enemies of Dr. Wright, and was used as a pawn in a fishing expedition in Florida and was seemingly not informed of a generous settlement. Still, the AFR report doesn’t mention any of that. Perhaps Mr. Kleiman has a case against his former lawyers?
The burning question
While the AFR report is written for a general audience and with the intention of creating suspense, it does ask one pointed and important question that all readers should contemplate.
And if he’s not Satoshi, as so many believe, why has he invested so much of his life – at the cost of so much grief – in trying to prove otherwise?
This question in itself should ignite curiosity in open-minded readers, but it should be followed up by others: if Dr. Wright is a hoaxer or a financial predator attempting to take control of Bitcoin, where is the real Satoshi Nakamoto, and why doesn’t he stop him? How can Dr. Wright be so confident that he won’t? Could it be that they are one and the same?
As Dr. Wright stands in a London court attempting to defend his life’s work, journalists worldwide will get a glimpse into the world of Bitcoin’s inventor, his purpose for it, and the evidence that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. I hope they correct the record and give him his dues when all is said and done.
Watch: Scalability & low-cst micropayments
New to blockchain? Check out CoinGeek’s Blockchain for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about blockchain technology.