Craig Wright Files £911 Billion Claim Against Bitcoin Core

On October 10, 2024, a legal claim surfaced involving a high-profile figure in the cryptocurrency space, Dr. Craig Steven Wright.

Wright, who claims to be the inventor of Bitcoin under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto, has now initiated legal action against Bitcoin Core developers. His claim, filed in the UK High Court, is valued at £911 billion and centers on what he describes as the “wrongful passing off of BTC as Bitcoin.”

Overview of the Claim

The essence of Wright’s legal argument revolves around the claim that the Bitcoin Core developers, specifically those associated with the cryptocurrency BTC, have altered the original Bitcoin protocol in significant ways that deviate from its original intent.

In his claim, Wright focuses on key protocol modifications introduced over the years, including SegWit (Segregated Witness) and Taproot. According to Wright, these changes, implemented without authorization, have misrepresented BTC as Bitcoin, leading to confusion within the market.

Wright asserts that the true version of Bitcoin is represented by Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV), which he argues adheres more strictly to the whitepaper authored by Satoshi Nakamoto. He claims that the modifications made to BTC fundamentally deviate from the peer-to-peer electronic cash system that Bitcoin was originally intended to be.

The Modifications in Question

Wright’s case highlights SegWit and Taproot as two significant alterations that led to the alleged misrepresentation.

SegWit, activated in 2017, was introduced to address Bitcoin’s transaction malleability and improve block size efficiency. Taproot, a more recent update, focuses on enhancing privacy, scalability, and smart contract functionality.

Wright argues that these changes fundamentally alter the original system described in the Bitcoin White Paper and, by doing so, present BTC as something it was not intended to be.

The core of Wright’s legal argument is that BTC no longer retains the attributes of what he considers “true” Bitcoin. As a result, he claims the public has been misled into believing that BTC is Bitcoin, thereby causing reputational damage to Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) and substantial financial losses due to the misrepresentation.

Financial Implications of the Claim

The staggering £911 billion claim is based on the difference in market valuation between Bitcoin (BTC) and Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV). At the time of the claim, Bitcoin (BTC) was valued at approximately £48,000 per unit, while Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) was valued at around £50 per unit.

The claim attributes the disparity in these market valuations to the misrepresentation of BTC as Bitcoin, which, according to Wright, has misled investors and caused significant losses for those invested in BSV.

The estimated £911 billion claim represents the financial impact of the market’s misrepresentation of BTC and its corresponding loss of market value to BSV. Wright’s claim, if successful, would represent one of the largest financial judgments in history, not just in the cryptocurrency sector but in any legal case.

Legal and Market Reactions

The case has already sparked widespread debate in the cryptocurrency community. While Wright has long been a controversial figure due to his claims of being Satoshi Nakamoto, this latest legal maneuver has reignited discussions around Bitcoin’s origins, the role of Bitcoin Core developers, and the future of Bitcoin Satoshi Vision.

Legal experts are divided on the outcome of the case, with some suggesting that proving such a significant level of damages and misrepresentation might be a challenging task.

Others, however, note that this case could set a legal precedent for how blockchain protocols and cryptocurrencies are viewed under the law, particularly regarding intellectual property and misrepresentation claims.

The broader cryptocurrency market has not yet significantly reacted to the news, but any developments in the case could potentially impact both BTC and BSV. Market participants will watch closely as the case unfolds, especially given the massive financial stakes involved.

Disclaimer: This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are urged to do in-depth research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses.

---

Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Telegram, and Google News