http://tinyurl.com/yfjwv2kp 这篇英文之前就想 PO 在板上, 我懒得翻了, 去看原文就知道了. Craig Wright Attempts to 'Reveal the Origin' of Satoshi Nakamoto's Name The Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit continues following the plaintiff’s request to Judge Reinhart asking him to overrule Craig Wright’s recent objections. Wright’s council has responded in a joint discovery memorandum asking for access to data tied to David Kleiman’s 15 computers. Wright has also requested any documentation tethered to Ira Kleiman’s (Dave’s brother) real estate transactions between April 1, 2013 to the present. Following the court requests, Wright has shown the public a time-stamped document that ostensibly indicates the origin of Satoshi Nakamoto’s name. Also read: 23 Days Until a Bonded Courier Supposedly Delivers Keys to $8 Billion in BTC Joint Discovery Filing Shows Wright Wants Access to Data Recovered From Dave’ s Electronic Devices and Ira’s Real Estate Transaction Records The high-profile lawsuit that involves the family of the deceased Dave Kleiman and self-proclaimed Bitcoin inventor Craig Wright continues to unfold toward the end of 2019. Dave Kleiman’s brother, Ira Kleiman, claims Wright tampered with Dave’s bitcoin inheritance and intellectual property. News.Bitcoin.com has been covering the story and on December 16, Kleiman’s lawyer Velvel Freedman asked the court to overrule Wright’s recent objections. The following day, a joint discovery memorandum was published giving more insight into this mysterious lawsuit over billions of dollars worth of bitcoin. The memorandum disclosed that Wright’s legal team is requesting “immediate access to the data recovered from Dave’s electronic devices.” Wright believes that Dave had at least 15 electronic devices and thinks that Ira threw one of them out. The memorandum alleged that Ira “ formatted and deleted data” so he could make space for his photos and movie files. “Ira continued using those devices up until March 18, 2019, which is at least one year after he filed this lawsuit,” Wright’s council detailed. The defendant’s joint discovery statement added it was very important to access Dave’s data as it could “shed light on the extent and location of Dave’s bitcoin holdings.” According to the memorandum, Wright had experts analyze images of Dave’s devices and they were “able to recover some of that data.” In addition to the data request, Wright has asked for documentation related to “any real estate transactions by Ira Kleiman from April 1, 2013, to the present.” The filing notes that Ira was never wealthy but in February of 2014, after Wright had allegedly told Ira to preserve Dave’s electronic devices, Ira bought a house with $400,000 in cash. The filing noted that Wright is entitled to find out whether or not Ira sold Dave’s bitcoin to finance his home purchase. The plaintiffs replied to the real estate transaction request and said the defendant’s request is “based on pure speculation.” The Kleiman estate believes it’s not relevant and there’s no evidence to suggest that Ira purchased a home with his deceased brother’s bitcoin assets. Kleiman’s council further remarked that the request was an “unnecessary invasion of Ira ’s privacy.” Wright has also produced a list of people and companies that are believed to have some connections with Wright’s electronic device data and also may have had communications with the plaintiffs. But Kleiman’s attorney called the request a “laundry list of individuals and entities that Dr. Wright believes are connected to an alleged hack of his computer devices. ” Kleiman’s lawyer added that Wright has never produced evidence in court that his computer devices were hacked. Wright Wants to Know if the Plaintiffs Communicated With BTC Miners, Core Developers, and Members of Blockstream The joint discovery memorandum also shows that Wright’s legal team has requested any communications between the plaintiffs and Greg Maxwell, the Twitter account ‘Contrarian,’ members of Blockstream, members of the Bitcoin Core development team, and any mining pools that mostly mine BTC. The plaintiff’s response to the communication request stressed that the demand was a “fishing expedition” and many of the requested individuals “are known detractors of Dr. Wright.” Kleiman’s council added: Whatever disputes Dr. Wright may have with these individuals is not relevant to any claim or defense in this matter. Furthermore, Wright told the court that he plans to bring Ramona Watts, Wright ’s wife, to testify as a witness. “Despite this, Craig refuses to make Ms. Watts available for deposition prior to the discovery cut off,” the plaintiffs complained. Additionally, Kleiman’s council had served Wright with a Production and Interrogatories request in regard to patents Wright may have that could have stemmed from his business partnership with Dave Kleiman. The plaintiffs’ request wants information concerning patents held by Nchain, but Wright’s legal team has “responded with a series of boilerplate objections.” Wizsec Research: ‘Looks Like Craig Showing off Another Bad Forgery’ After the filing on December 17, Wright did another candid interview with Modern Consensus. During the interview, Wright allegedly unveiled the origin behind the Satoshi Nakamoto monicker. He held up a piece of paper and told the Modern Consensus reporter that he was digging up old documents. The paper contains “the origin of where I chose the name Satoshi,” Wright said. The document shows a JSTOR academic journal database editorial about Tominaga Nakamoto from the Monumenta Nipponica. The timestamp on the document suggests that the recorded date was well before the whitepaper published on Halloween 2008. In fact, the JSTOR academic paper Wright showed the camera has a date that reads May 1, 2008, at approximately 11:17 am. “Satoshi, the actual meaning is ‘intelligent learning.’ It’s about ancestors, smart and wise ancestors — You’ve got the concept of blocks and whatever goes before, instructs what comes out but that’ll all come out,” Wright said during the interview. As soon as the ‘exclusive’ interview was published, the greater crypto community found a bunch of flaws with Wright’s story. The first thing that was discovered was the last two digits from the timestamp looked as though they were tampered with. The weird-looking date was revealed by the Twitter account @seekingsatoshi which also stated: “The complexity level of his document fraud is consistently very low, seems there is little thought or effort put into it.” The security specialists Wizsec also ripped Wright’s latest document apart, when the researchers explained that the cover sheet was purportedly downloaded in 2008. However, the cover sheet format shown by Wright was “only used from mid-2011 through early 2015. ” Wizsec also noticed the “clumsy font mismatch in the edited timestamp.” Additionally, Wizsec asked how Craig could have known about the obscure article unless he was really Satoshi, but quickly pointed out that the article is easy to find when searching for “historical Nakamotos” using Google. The latest JSTOR academic document Wright revealed to the public has not swayed the crypto community in the least and researchers like Wizsec concluded the JSTOR document “looks like Craig showing off yet another bad forgery.” What do you think about the ongoing Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit? What do you think about the latest document Wright shared? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below. Image credits: Shutterstock, Bloomberg, Wiki Commons, Fair Use, Pixabay, Modern Consensus, and the Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit. ※ 引述《saiulbb (#KEEP MLB GREAT!)》之铭言： : ※ [本文转录自 Gossiping 看板 #1Xhr0ei_ ] : 作者: saiulbb (#KEEP MLB GREAT!) 看板: Gossiping : 标题: [新闻] 比特币之父诉讼：被告判赔 1 亿美元却乐 : 时间: Tue Dec 7 20:14:30 2021 : 备注请放最後面 违者新闻文章删除 : 1.媒体来源: : ※ 例如苹果日报、自由时报（请参考版规下方的核准媒体名单） : 科技新报 : 2.记者署名: : ※ 若新闻没有记者名字或编辑名字，请勿张贴，否则会被水桶14天 : ※ 外电至少要有来源或编辑 如:法新社 : 作者 Chen Kobe | 发布日期 2021 年 12 月 07 日 16:40 | 分类 Fintech , 加密货币 : , 区块链 Blockchain : 3.完整新闻标题: : ※ 标题没有完整写出来 ---> 依照板规删除文章 : 比特币之父诉讼：被告判赔 1 亿美元却乐歪，关键在 110 万颗比特币 : 4.完整新闻内文: : ※ 社论特稿都不能贴！违者删除（政治类水桶3个月)，贴广告也会被删除喔！可详看版规 : 堪称加密货币世纪判决的遗产争夺案，今天有了判决结果，自称比特币之父「中本聪」的 : 克雷格‧莱特因侵占资产被判赔 1 亿美元，莱特却对判决结果非常满意，因为这可能让 : 他「中本聪」身分获得法院认证。 : 澳洲电脑工程师克雷格‧莱特（Craig Wright）可能赢得人生最重要的诉讼，虽然他被判 : 赔 1 亿美元，却赢得更重要的东西，究竟是怎麽回事？ : 莱特 2016 年在网路宣称自己就是比特币之父中本聪（Nakamoto Satoshi），引起币圈譁 : 然，但因他似乎无法动用中本聪的比特币钱包，未能获得信任。 : 报导显示，比特币发明人中本聪可能是一个人，也可能是一个团队，当中本聪消失後，人 : 们唯一能看到的，就只有他留在比特币钱包里的 110 万颗比特币，让这名传奇人物始终 : 稳居世界富豪榜。 : 中本聪之谜，却因为一个人死亡而露出端倪。 : 2013 年，比特币网路早期开发者大卫‧克雷曼（David Kleiman）过世後，弟弟向联邦法 : 院提告，指控莱特侵占克雷曼的遗产，包括比特币相关开发资料、智慧财产权，以及神秘 : 的 110 万颗比特币。这才让人开始有点相信，莱特与中本聪的关系。 : 原告认为，比特币是由莱特与克雷曼共同发明，两个人合在一起才是「中本聪」，因此克 : 雷曼应享有中本聪一半的资产，包括比特币、相关文件与智慧财产权。 : 莱特及辩方律师则宣称，比特币是莱特独力开发，因此这些资产不必分给克雷曼。经过五 : 星期法庭攻防战，陪审团认定，双方没有商业夥伴关系，因此原告并未拥有所称资产的分 : 额，包括比特币与其他软体类的智慧财产权。 : 不过法院认为，莱特侵占两人合资公司 W&K Info Defense Research 的智慧财产权，包 : 括软体和挖矿用电脑等，因此需赔偿 W&K 公司 1 亿美元，但无需赔偿克雷曼家族。 : 换言之，假设双方真的共同持有「中本聪」钱包，那现在这钱包的所有权就等於归给莱特 : ，莱特也表示他会在近期捐出一部分比特币为慈善用途，同时证明他就是中本聪。 : 110 万颗比特币现值相当於 540 亿美元，加上原告要求的其他赔偿约 1,260 亿美元，莱 : 特只需赔偿 1 亿美元就完结，难怪他一点都不难过。 : 更讽刺的是，W&K 这家公司当初是由莱特与克雷曼共同创立，目前由三个人共同持有，包 : 括官司原告克雷曼的弟弟、莱特前妻及莱特现任妻子，各自持三分之一股权。因此判决结 : 果出炉後，莱特立刻嘲讽克雷曼恐怕拿不到钱，因为他的势力占公司三分之二。 : 莱特近年创立的比特币 SV（BSV），也在判决出炉後「验明血统」大涨，目前币值到 : 147 美元。但更让人在意的是，莱特是否真的握有中本聪钱包的控制权？那 110 万颗沉 : 睡的比特币，会否突然苏醒呢？ : Craig Wright Found Not Liable for Breach of Kleiman Business Partnership : Miami jury rules in favor of Craig Wright, who claimed to invent bitcoin : （首图来源：影片截图） : 5.完整新闻连结 (或短网址): : ※ 当新闻连结过长时，需提供短网址方便网友点击 : https://finance.technews.tw/2021/12/07/craig-wright-law-suit-bitcoin/ : 6.备注: : ※ 一个人一天只能张贴一则新闻(以天为单位)，被删或自删也算额度内，超贴者水桶，请注意 : ※ 备注请勿张贴三日内新闻(包含连结、标题等) : 羡慕！540亿美元只要赔1亿美元就能处理了，话说Craig Wright真的是中本聪本人吗？ --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 49.217.201.211 (台湾) ※ 文章网址: https://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/DigiCurrency/M.1638885878.A.E89.html