Craig Wright Publishes His ‘Bitcoin Whitepaper’ to SSRN, Says Its Time to Own His Invention

The Craig “Faketoshi” Wright saga continues…this time outside court! Australian businessman and self-proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto, Craig Wright, published ‘his’ Bitcoin whitepaper on academic journal database, SSRN, on August 22nd in a bid to cement his claim as the real founder of Bitcoin.

Craig spoke to CCN on the recent publish saying,

“I've already publicly admitted I am Satoshi. It is time to own my invention.”

Real or Fake Satoshi Nakamoto?

While the real identity of Satoshi is unknown (at least to the majority of the BTC community), Craig published the Bitcoin whitepaper under his name. The paper titled, “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” is a nine page document that Dr. Craig S Wright ([email protected]) claims to have published in August 21 2008 while still at the Charles Sturt University.

Excerpt of Craig S Wright's Bitcoin whitepaper published on SSRN (Image: SSRN)

This comes days after Pakistani coder named Bilal Khalid came out claiming to be the real Satoshi in a master reveal. Well, the move was an epic fail as the unforgiving cryptocurrency community brushed aside his claim sending him back into oblivion.

The obsession with Satoshi further extended to a Belgian man, Debo Jurgen Etienne Guido who claimed to be the true Satoshi Nakamoto with evidence expected to be released by the end of the year.

‘Proof to be Satoshi? Not Private keys’

As a claim to be Satoshi, the Bitcoin community ask for a signature on the original block and private keys to Satoshis’ 1 million BTC coins. Craig does not agree that private keys give proof of ownership as he reinstates he is the real Satoshi. He said,

“The concept that is counted consistently of ‘no keys, not your bitcoin' is meaningless drivel. Very soon, you’re going to see just how foolish this idea is.”

A court judge in Florida denied Craig the Appeal to dismiss the $10 billion dollar lawsuit filed against him by the estate Dave Kleiman on August 15 citing lack of credible evidence.