The Civic Node

Craig Wright

3 min read

Overview

Craig Wright is an Australian computer scientist who repeatedly and falsely claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator. In May 2024, Mr Justice Mellor of the English High Court ruled definitively that Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto, finding 47 instances of forged evidence and describing Wright as having lied “extensively and repeatedly.” Wright was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for potential perjury prosecution and received a worldwide injunction prohibiting further Satoshi authorship claims.

Key Facts

  • Wright publicly claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto beginning in 2016; the claim was backed by fraudulent documentary evidence.
  • COPA v Wright, [2024] EWHC 1198 (Ch): Mr Justice Mellor found Wright not to be Satoshi after a six-week trial. 47 instances of forgery identified. Documents purportedly from 2008–2011 created shortly before trial. COPA v Wright Judgment — Mellor 2024 EWHC 1198 Ch
  • Mellor’s language: Wright “lied to the Court extensively and repeatedly”; engaged in forgery “on a grand scale”; used Courts “as a vehicle for fraud.” COPA v Wright Judgment — Mellor 2024 EWHC 1198 Ch
  • Four declarations granted in COPA’s favor; worldwide anti-suit injunction; CPS referral for Wright and witness Stefan Matthews.
  • Contempt judgment followed ([2024] EWHC 3315 (Ch)); civil restraint orders limit further litigation.
  • Wright’s litigation produced August 2008 emails between Adam Back and “Satoshi” as discovered evidence — emails later cited by NYT reporter Carreyrou as circumstantial evidence linking Back to Satoshi. NYT Names Adam Back as Satoshi Nakamoto — Bitcoin.com Coverage

Newsletter Relevance

Wright’s elimination via judicial fraud ruling narrows the live Satoshi candidate field to Back, Hal Finney (deceased), and Nick Szabo (faded). The trial’s discovery process inadvertently generated the most significant new documentary evidence — the Back-Satoshi August 2008 emails — in the actual Satoshi investigation. Wright’s attempt to use litigation to claim identity created the evidence trail that now points at someone else.

Connections

  • Satoshi Nakamoto — false claimant; definitively ruled not Satoshi
  • Adam Back — August 2008 emails produced in Wright’s trial become key evidence; Back is the leading current candidate
  • Hal Finney — second-closest stylometric match; Wright’s elimination strengthens other candidates
  • Nick Szabo — third leading candidate; also benefits from Wright’s elimination
  • Cypherpunk Movement — the intellectual context all candidates share

Source Appearances

Open Questions

  • Has Wright complied with the worldwide anti-suit injunction, or continued asserting authorship?
  • What is the status of the CPS perjury referral against Wright and Stefan Matthews?
  • What other documentary evidence about early Bitcoin development was produced in Wright’s litigation but not widely publicized?

Graph View

Backlinks