Bitcoin Developers “Demolish” Fake Satoshi: What Does the Recent Court Order Tell Us?


Mr. Wright’s allegations regarding an alleged breach of his company’s cryptocurrency cannot be examined “on the merits of the claim,” the English and Wales High Court said. Bitcoin Developers “Demolish” Fake Satoshi: What Do We Learn from Recent Court Order?

Yesterday (March 25, 2022), British High Court judge and senior judicial commissioner Valerie Falk, DBE, ruled that Tulip Trading Limited, a Seychelles-based company founded by self-proclaimed Bitcoin (BTC) inventor Craig Wright, lacks a legal basis to sue core Bitcoin (BTC) developers over an alleged February 2020 hack.

Another blunder by Craig Wright?

According to the language of the court ruling made public by official England and Wales High Court webpage, the judge categorically rejected Craig Wright’s allegations.

CSW charged a number of seasoned Bitcoin (BTC) developers, including the project’s three primary maintainers, Wladimir van der Laan, Pieter Wuille, and Jonas Schnelli, of refusing to “take actions to enable TTL to reclaim control of the assets.” Meanwhile, it remains unclear if the purported breach occurred: “stolen” funds have been declared inactive by a court order.

Dame Falk emphasised that even if the hack occurred and resulted in significant losses for Mr. Wright, the defendants could not be held liable for their reluctance to help him in reclaiming his money via compromising network integrity:

The fact that the BSV Network may be considering a system modification to accommodate the loss of private key access (…) does not indicate that any such change, whether general or particular to TTL, may be forced on others.

Additionally, Bitcoin (BTC) veterans should not be held accountable for the inability to install security procedures to safeguard Bitcoin (BTC) users from key loss.

As a result, the court ruled that CSW’s assertions are inadmissible as legal claims: TTL has failed to prove a substantial issue for trial on the merits of the claim. In certain circumstances, the proper order is to vacate the Deputy Master Nurse’s approval to serve the claim form outside of the jurisdiction, as well as to vacate the claim form’s service.

Generally, Crypto Twitter attacked CSW’s charges and complimented the humorous tone of the court ruling and the judge’s in-depth grasp of blockchain:

I would assert that Mrs Justice Falk has fared considerably better than some anticipated. The decision is well-reasoned and presented.

WizSec, a cybersecurity firm specialising in blockchain technology, criticised the assertions for their lack of formal logic:

As such, CSW threatened and filed a lawsuit for breach of duty, yet not only does the obligation not exist, but the breach also hasn’t occurred yet, and won’t until the court rules in his favour.

BitMEX Research, the research and development department of BitMEX’s crypto ecosystem, is certain that this is the last court ruling for CSW and his lawyer, Calvin Ayre, in a years-long storey.

Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre, as of press time, have remained silent on whether the court order would be appealed—refusing to comment on the issue.

What does this signify for the regulation of Web3?

To begin, the judgement seems to be a resounding defeat for Craig Wright: the court rejected his claims on a technicality, not on legal grounds.

The aforementioned judgement is one of the first to legally establish that blockchain creators and maintainers are not liable for private key problems.

That is the essence of decentralisation: the “not your keys, not your crypto” phrase has been sanctioned by the English and Welsh High Court. And this is about far more than just another episode in the “CSW vs. Bitcoiners” saga.

Also Read: Mishustin, Russia’s Prime Minister, Calls for Crypto Integration Into the Country’s Economy

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.