Judge rules Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto

The court did not say that. The other party said that about Wright.

Of course, that's the obvious way to prove it. But it _would_ require you to be Satoshi, which he is not. Frankly, the fact he has not done that should be damning enough.

What's worse is he claimed he "owned" early mined bitcoin but lost the keys. One of said coins was then moved with a message saying "Not owned by Craig Wright". Of course he just made up more lies.

And even in the theoretical case that he somehow lost those keys (just to explore the argument), it doesn't matter.

The whole system is based on the premis that the math and the keys are the ultimate definition of truth right?

Lost your keys? Oh well. So what? You get the same take-backs as if you had a pile of paper money and burned it.

If he were the one who created the system in the first place, he would know better and be the last person on the planet to even try to say anything like "It's me but I just can't prove it."

It's just nonsensical before even looking at any supposed evidense. Sign something or why are you even bothering to waste even 5 minutes of anyone's time? (and why is anyone else even giving him so much as 5 minutes?)

He was the respondant in this lawsuit. The plaintiff (copa) was seeking injunctive relief to get him to stop saying he was Satoshi because he basically goes around the world doing it.

> I don’t understand why courts even entertain this guy

There are a number of protections against spurious litigation, -- though it seems like there are more in the US than the UK. Unfortunately, some are defeated by simply being willing to lie arbitrarily others are defeated by the claimant not being poor. E.g. summary judgements are sought on the basis that the non-movants facts are true. So you can escape your case being discarded on a summary basis by being sure to allege whatever lies are required to keep your case alive.

Courts often dispel kook cases often on the basis that they haven't complied with technical formalities. If you're able to pay for high powered representation these hurdles can be cleared.

> Shouldn’t he have been locked up for contempt and perjury like 100 times for this stunt?

Perjury is very rarely punished directly. Generally the punishment for perjury is that you lose your case.

> committed into an institution involuntarily

I've seen no evidence that Wright is unable to tell the truth. He tells lies that boost his ego and benefit him financially. His conduct is criminal. Perhaps, as is often the case for criminals, there is some underlying personality disorder or psychological malfunction that pushes them in this direction, but who knows.

Wright's fraud appears to have begun in a fairly boring way: Since at least 2003 he had engaged in fairly pedestrian tax fraud-- claiming fraudulent R&D tax credits and GST (sales tax) refunds. It appears that over time he became more and more bold with his claims until they finally caught the attention of authorities. Everything since has just been one lie after another to cover up the current.

I find it pretty offensive, -- right now GST fraud is a big deal in AU with now billions estimated being stolen per year. The ATO is putting up videos on their site of raiding the homes of people obviously living in public housing who stole a few thousand dollars. Wright stole millions and attempted to steal tens of millions and has since been living the high life in London, issuing violent threats and vexatious litigation and basically being a huge ass. But perhaps I'm biased, given that I'm one of his litigation targets.

In any case, it's often the case for conmen that their scheme only ends when its finally grown too big for them to grow any larger. When that happens people ask why wasn't it stopped before and the answer is just that at the prior scale the con was able to evade the consequences... but eventually their luck or their pool of ready victims ran out.

To make an example in this case-- you'd think this could have been dispelled with quickly by the court simply ordering him to produce signatures with Satoshi's keys since he's claimed to have done that before (but the one public example was a fake, just a signature copied off the blockchain). But Wright claimed that for inconsistently described reasons he destroyed the keys... buying himself a few more years.

Please don't do this.

He's repeatedly denied it, and your ignorant claim can only bring him and his family trouble.

(Also, I've known Adam for a number of years and I can personally vouch that it's not him!)

I’m blissfully ignorant of most of this debacle, but wouldn’t it be easy for the real Satoshi to prove his(?) identity, say with crypto keys only they would have?

Yeah the "galaxy brain" move is tell everyone you're Satoshi, take out a bunch of lawsuits in the US to try to enforce copyright of the name, lose them, sue people in the UK who say you aren't Satoshi, lose a few of those lawsuits (and drop the rest), lose $100m in damages in the US to the estate of some other dude, lose this copa lawsuit as well. Along the way every judge says stuff about how you aren't at all credible[1]. Now noone will suspect you're the real Satoshi.

Much better than say just keeping quiet. It's like how stealth jets make a bunch of noise so noone will suspect they want to stay hidden.

[1] Read this - to someone who had no interest in this before it's hillarious https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Steven_Wright#Legal_issu...