Some of the addresses that Craig Wright, who claims himself to be the pseudo-anonymous bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto, has filed in the ongoing court case has been used by someone other than him.
This individual used the private key to sign a message where they call Wright a “fraud.”
“Craig Steven Wright is a liar and a fraud. He doesn't have the keys used to sign this message,” reads the message adding “We are all Satoshi.”
The message also mentions Lightning Network and that it is a significant achievement but,
“we need to continue work on improving on-chain capacity. Unfortunately, the solution is not to just change a constant in the code or to allow powerful participants to force out others.”
The addresses and the signatures are found to be valid and further verified that they are on Wright’s Tulip Trust list as well.
BitMEX Research also found that none of the addresses, the random 20 from Wright’s list, were allocated to the dominant miner.
Kleinman vs. Wright lawsuit reaching a crescendo?
Wright submitted a list of blocks and bitcoin addresses to the court on May 21st, 2020 that is from the alleged Tulip Trust in the ongoing Kleinman vs. Wright lawsuit. Ira Kleinman is representing his deceased brother David Kleinman, a security researcher who worked with Wight, for 550,000 BTC — half of Satoshi’s over a million BTC stash.
According to Wright, The Tulip Trust has the 1.1 million BTC that were mined in its early days.
However, it was found the addresses in the Trust “have recently spent blocks in them, when Wright testified that the keys are inaccessible,” explained a Reddit post.
As for the addresses on this list, Arthur van Pelt on twitter shared,
“The story is this: Craig *kept* nothing. He asked nChain's Steve Shadders to create a list with possible Satoshi public addresses. That list contained 27,000 addresses. Then Craig took 16,404 addresses of this Shadders list in January 2020 and filed them in court Florida.”
Arthur shared this while calling out the ridiculousness of Craig Wright's “Opposition To Plaintiffs' Omnibus Motion In Limine” where his counsel supported the narrative that he has been “hacked.”
On the same day, Wright provided a list of addresses, a new motion for sanctions was filed by the plaintiff laying out that Wright has lied under oath and submitted forged evidence, provided perjurious testimony, and that his conduct has made a mockery of the judicial system as such asking the court to enter a default judgment against Wright.