As if we didn't think that typical "journalists" stoop down low enough with these misleading or outright false article titles. Unfortunately this would cause a lot of people(the normies) on social media to think that Faketoshi is going to dump the coins or something.
Also, they could literally call Faketoshi anything; but the fact is, he doesn't have access to Satoshi's keys so it wouldn't really change anything.
Topic: No..Craig Wright Was NOT Named Bitcoin's Creator - page 3. (Read 514 times)
It's really sad how readily "journalists" repeat whatever disinformation is shoveled at them.
An accurate headline would be "Faux Bitcoin-creator found liable for $100m in damages due to stealing from dead friend's company."
Unfortunately there is a massive disinformation campaign on all fronts on this... and as a result even earnest Bitcoiners are getting confused and repeating some falsehoods.
No. No one was found to be Satoshi. The court wasn't even looking at that. No, wright did not "win"-- he has been ordered to pay $100 million dollars which will bankrupt him many times over (unless he's able to get a bailout from a sucker who he can promise future 'satoshi bitcoin' to...).
Wright's damages are because he raided the assets of his friends company by filing a lawsuit against it in AU and then showing up as the defendant himself to concede the lawsuit. The argument that wright won is because the estate also demanded half of Wright's obviously fictional Bitcoin and it appears the jury didn't buy the existence of that Bitcoin and so they didn't award anything thing.
Rather than supporting Wright's claims, the case brutally refuted them. Including proving mountains of Wright produced documents to be forgeries. The argument made by Wright's attorney in closing was essentially a chewbacca defense: They argued that wright is a fantasist and that it didn't make sense for the plaintiff to rely on Wright's forgeries as proof, and kept chanting "if it doesn't make sense you go with the defense".
Probably the highlight of the case was when Wright was ordered by the court under threat of being held in contempt to identify and swear to which specific bitcoin he owned in 2013 and he provided a list just before the deadline-- only to have the real owners of thousands of bitcoins on it immediately show up with digital signatures calling Wright a liar and a fraud. But it's hard to pick one. Wright made a total clown of himself so many times over that it's hard to choose.
An accurate headline would be "Faux Bitcoin-creator found liable for $100m in damages due to stealing from dead friend's company."
Unfortunately there is a massive disinformation campaign on all fronts on this... and as a result even earnest Bitcoiners are getting confused and repeating some falsehoods.
No. No one was found to be Satoshi. The court wasn't even looking at that. No, wright did not "win"-- he has been ordered to pay $100 million dollars which will bankrupt him many times over (unless he's able to get a bailout from a sucker who he can promise future 'satoshi bitcoin' to...).
Wright's damages are because he raided the assets of his friends company by filing a lawsuit against it in AU and then showing up as the defendant himself to concede the lawsuit. The argument that wright won is because the estate also demanded half of Wright's obviously fictional Bitcoin and it appears the jury didn't buy the existence of that Bitcoin and so they didn't award anything thing.
Rather than supporting Wright's claims, the case brutally refuted them. Including proving mountains of Wright produced documents to be forgeries. The argument made by Wright's attorney in closing was essentially a chewbacca defense: They argued that wright is a fantasist and that it didn't make sense for the plaintiff to rely on Wright's forgeries as proof, and kept chanting "if it doesn't make sense you go with the defense".
Probably the highlight of the case was when Wright was ordered by the court under threat of being held in contempt to identify and swear to which specific bitcoin he owned in 2013 and he provided a list just before the deadline-- only to have the real owners of thousands of bitcoins on it immediately show up with digital signatures calling Wright a liar and a fraud. But it's hard to pick one. Wright made a total clown of himself so many times over that it's hard to choose.
People still read this news articles?
It's interesting to see how much desperate CW is to prove himself as satoshi. I read those article to get informed what he is doing exactly. Well, whatever they do, whatever they have, they can't prove CW as satoshi unless CW can sign a message from one of known address of satoshi.
People still read this news articles? In this day and age, we don't see any journalists that delivers the truth if it doesn't further their own agenda so I don't know why people still read this articles, this is a bait title so you can be intrigued and click their article and read it, it is intended to be misleading.
Here we go again with these news outlets. As many of you have maybe read, Craig Wright won the lawsuit in Miami over a dispute over $50,000,000,000 in bitcoin. This issue is the media is writing misleading headlines suggesting Craig Wright won a lawsuit over whether he was bitcoin's creator or not. They continue to lace their articles with misleading notions suggesting the lawsuit was over whether CW is Satoshi or not.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/06/miami-jury-rules-in-favor-of-craig-wright-bitcoin-claimed-inventor.html
https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cryptocurrency/21/12/24467590/bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-is-craig-wright-alone-according-to-kleiman-v-wright-jury
Please please please read the entire article before making assumptions. We already have people in the IRC and Reddit spreading FUD regarding these headlines.
We all know what he has to do to prove he is who he says he is.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/06/miami-jury-rules-in-favor-of-craig-wright-bitcoin-claimed-inventor.html
https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cryptocurrency/21/12/24467590/bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-is-craig-wright-alone-according-to-kleiman-v-wright-jury
Please please please read the entire article before making assumptions. We already have people in the IRC and Reddit spreading FUD regarding these headlines.
We all know what he has to do to prove he is who he says he is.
Jump to: