[ad_1]
A Redditor has revealed perhaps the most interesting fraud claim regarding Craig Wright yet. Wright is being sued by the estate of Dave Kleiman for a sum in the many billions of dollars. The suit alleges that Wright stole over 1 million BTC from Kleiman shortly after his death.
Signature Actually Dates to 2014, Not 2012
Reddit user Contrarian__ says that a piece of evidence submitted by Wright in the case is provably false. An apparent expert in GPG signatures and cryptography, Contrarian__ makes his case plain as day:
We know how to find the long ID of the key used and the timestamp of the signature. I’ve bolded the ID and italicized the timestamp. Looking on the MIT keyserver, we can find the fake* key. The timestamp of the signature is 1394600848, which is March 12, 2014, two weeks before Craig filed to install Uyen as a director of Dave’s old company, and almost a year after Dave died!
The e-mail has another interesting characteristic, beyond its apparent false signature: apparently Dave Kleiman mispelled his own name as Klieman when he set up the account from which he sent the e-mail. Or the e-mail is definitively fake and alleged Satoshi Nakamoto Craig Wright failed to catch the typo while generating the fabrication.
Source: Scribd
Another Reddit commentator points out that the strategy for “appointing” someone is odd, as Kleiman allegedly says:
Unless I hear otherwise, I will assume you are coming on-board.
The redditor comments:
I’m going to use this technique to assemble an amazing board for directors for my dog-walking business.
Craig Wright: Chief Scientist or Professional Litigant?
Wright is fast becoming a professional litigant, with lawsuits against him and numerous suits against others. Calvin Ayre has acted as a sort of press man for Wright, letting the world know as Wright sends more and more legal threats.
Most recently, the subjects of his legal rancor have gotten higher and higher profile: both Vitalik Buterin and Adam Back are allegedly going to have to answer for denying Wright’s (unproven) claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
Adam Back back got his letter from Craig today so he will also have a chance to tell his story under oath in a UK court. He must really be happy about this given how loud he has been in the last week on his opinions. 🙂 https://t.co/ygDnfkZW7I
— Calvin Ayre (@CalvinAyre) April 16, 2019
You’ll notice that this reporter made a rare comment on the post linked in the above tweet. It seems clear that Satoshi Nakamoto illustrated within the pages of the whitepaper why he was referencing Adam Back’s Hashcash paper. However, Wright claims in his most recent work:
So, Wei is referenced as he helped. Adam Back is referenced as he pointed me to Wei.
The fact that Craig Wright has not yet managed to prove his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto should not be lost on the reader. Even friends and faithful followers of Wright, such as Roger Ver, have eventually parted ways, believing they were conned.
The standard of proof as to who is Satoshi Nakamoto seems to be the ability to create a cryptographic signature using one of the original Satoshi addresses. No one has done this, including Craig Wright.
[ad_2]
Source link
