Everything makes sense if David Kleiman was Satoshi ...

Alleged Bitcoin inventor Dave Kleiman denied payday loan the day he died

Alleged Bitcoin inventor Dave Kleiman denied payday loan the day he died submitted by leftok to atbitcoin [link] [comments]

Lawsuit: Craig Wright (Fake Satoshi) used blatantly forged signatures and back-dated contracts, to steal Bitcoins after Dave Kleiman died. The Fake Satoshi brand is poison, and I urge the BCH community to wake up before it's too late.

Lawsuit: Craig Wright (Fake Satoshi) used blatantly forged signatures and back-dated contracts, to steal Bitcoins after Dave Kleiman died. The Fake Satoshi brand is poison, and I urge the BCH community to wake up before it's too late. submitted by normal_rc to btc [link] [comments]

Lawsuit: Craig Wright (Fake Satoshi) used blatantly forged signatures and back-dated contracts, to steal Bitcoins after Dave Kleiman died. The Fake Satoshi brand is poison, and I urge the BCH community to wake up before it's too late.

Lawsuit: Craig Wright (Fake Satoshi) used blatantly forged signatures and back-dated contracts, to steal Bitcoins after Dave Kleiman died. The Fake Satoshi brand is poison, and I urge the BCH community to wake up before it's too late. submitted by HiIAMCaptainObvious to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Interesting thread on r\bitcoin with lots of speculation about David Kleiman (Craig Wright's friend who died of MRSA in 2013), Kleiman's relative Ira, and a USB stick...

https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4hnbli/did_someone_rule_out_kleiman_wrights_dead_friend/
EDIT: OP headline should have said "USB drive", not "USB stick". Sorry!
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Interesting thread on r\bitcoin with lots of speculation about David Kleiman (Craig Wright's friend who died of MRSA in 2013), Kleiman's relative Ira, and a USB stick... /r/btc

Interesting thread on r\bitcoin with lots of speculation about David Kleiman (Craig Wright's friend who died of MRSA in 2013), Kleiman's relative Ira, and a USB stick... /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

What's the magic redaction?

Craig Wright is crying about
an unreliable, scandalous, and defamatory accusation against Dr. Wright that appears in a footnote of the In Limine Reply
What's up with that?
He doesn't like it because of you wonderful people!
This case is followed extensively by the media and obsessively by a cult-like bitcoin internet community that hawks the docket, reports every detail of the case (e.g., the kind of pizza Dr. Wright and counsel ordered at dinner during a meeting in Miami last year), and that has violated this Court’s restrictions on digital devices to livestream from a hearing before Judge Reinhart. To allow plaintiffs to air a wild accusation like this would permit a baseless conspiracy theory to be repeated endlessly in the internet’s echo chamber, harming Dr. Wright’s reputation, likely reaching potential jurors whose opinions could be tainted at trial and surely reaching the sort of unstable persons who might harass Dr. Wright or worse.
Aww that's special. Counsel, hello, do tell your client where his case is if he can't already smell it.
So what is this redaction, the "accusation"? It appears here in the footnote at the bottom of page 6 of the pdf (page 4 by the numbering).
We can figure out what it is: and sadly for all you depraved, dead-eyed cult members out there, it's not actually an "unreliable, scandalous and defamatory accusation". It's legal argument, in this case argumentum ad absurdum.
We can figure out from the Response to this motion for redactions (that in a bit) that what is "alleged" here is that Craig Wright killed Dave Kleiman, or had him killed, or something like that. But the "allegation" is offered as an argumentum ad absurdum, a facially absurd claim.
The Plaintiff's Response to this motion says:
Plaintiffs moved in limine to prevent Wright from offering testimony that David committed suicide because it is a baseless attempt at character assassination where (i) no record evidence supports it, and in fact, (ii) record evidence from the expert government officials charged with making determinations on causes of death (the Medical Examiner’s office) directly refutes it by stating David died of natural causes.
In reply, Plaintiffs have simply made the logical argument that this evidence should be excluded. To demonstrate the preposterous nature of Wright’s evidence, Plaintiffs have argued that there is more record evidence in the case to support a jury inference that Wright took certain extreme actions to steal David’s bitcoin fortune, then [sic] evidence that David committed suicide. Plaintiff’s point is correct and simply legal argument. There are no grounds to seal this portion of the brief other than the fact that Wright doesn’t like that argument.
The footnote no doubt offers that argumentum ad absurdum. Plaintiffs are saying that if the Defendant is allowed to start discussing theories that Dave Kleiman killed Dave Kleiman, they as Plaintiffs are going to have to be allowed to argue that that evidence is at least as consistent with a theory that Craig Wright killed Dave Kleiman, or had him killed. If deftly argued (the footnote isn't long, but it's long enough for this) it would include a discussion that Wright had both a strong motive, and the financial means to do so, both solidly upon the record, and that his subsequent behaviour was consistent with that. But the conclusion would be absurd, and we don't want the trial to descend into a farce of accusations about who killed whom, when there is a medical examiner's report on the record saying the body died of a heart attack.
So when the redaction is lifted, that's probably what we'll see. Fun!
submitted by Yep_its_JLAC to bsv [link] [comments]

The fraud continues - Craig Wright just purposely submitted a provably fake email into evidence in the Kleiman-Wright case

Craig Wright's fraud continues. Yesterday, he submitted into evidence an email he says was from Dave Kleiman to Uyen Nguyen asking her to be a director of his 'bitcoin company' in late 2012.
It is provably fake.
Craig didn't realize that the email's PGP signature includes a signing timestamp along with the ID of the key used as metadata. Was the email actually sent in 2012? Let's find out!
The beginning of the signature is as follows: iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTH+uQAAoJELiFsXrEW+0bCacH/3K
Converted to hex, it's: 89 01 1c 04 01 01 02 00 06 05 02 53 1f eb 90 00 0a 09 10 b8 85 b1 7a c4 5b ed 1b 09 a7 07 ff 72
We know how to find the long ID of the key used and the timestamp of the signature. I've bolded the ID and italicized the timestamp. Looking on the MIT keyserver, we can find the fake* key. The timestamp of the signature is 1394600848, which is March 12, 2014, two weeks before Craig filed to install Uyen as a director of Dave's old company, and almost a year after Dave died!
We can double-check with gpg -vv. Transcribe the email and paste it in. Here's the output:
:signature packet: algo 1, keyid B885B17AC45BED1B version 4, created 1394600848, md5len 0, sigclass 0x01 digest algo 2, begin of digest 09 a7 hashed subpkt 2 len 4 (sig created 2014-03-12) subpkt 16 len 8 (issuer key ID B885B17AC45BED1B) 
(I'll note, as an aside, that Dave apparently spelled his name incorrectly and put a typo in the subject.)
*The fake key has the same pref-hash-algos as Craig's fake keys, and were never updated.
submitted by Contrarian__ to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The fraud continues - Craig Wright just purposely submitted a provably fake email into evidence in the Kleiman-Wright case

Craig Wright's fraud continues. Yesterday, he submitted into evidence an email he says was from Dave Kleiman to Uyen Nguyen asking her to be a director of his 'bitcoin company' in late 2012.
It is provably fake.
Craig didn't realize that the email's PGP signature includes a signing timestamp along with the ID of the key used as metadata. Was the email actually sent in 2012? Let's find out!
The beginning of the signature is as follows: iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTH+uQAAoJELiFsXrEW+0bCacH/3K
Converted to hex, it's: 89 01 1c 04 01 01 02 00 06 05 02 53 1f eb 90 00 0a 09 10 b8 85 b1 7a c4 5b ed 1b 09 a7 07 ff 72
We know how to find the long ID of the key used and the timestamp of the signature. I've bolded the ID and italicized the timestamp. Looking on the MIT keyserver, we can find the fake* key. The timestamp of the signature is 1394600848, which is March 12, 2014, two weeks before Craig filed to install Uyen as a director of Dave's old company, and almost a year after Dave died!
We can double-check with gpg -vv. Transcribe the email and paste it in. Here's the output:
:signature packet: algo 1, keyid B885B17AC45BED1B version 4, created 1394600848, md5len 0, sigclass 0x01 digest algo 2, begin of digest 09 a7 hashed subpkt 2 len 4 (sig created 2014-03-12) subpkt 16 len 8 (issuer key ID B885B17AC45BED1B) 
(I'll note, as an aside, that Dave apparently spelled his name incorrectly and put a typo in the subject.)
*The fake key has the same pref-hash-algos as Craig's fake keys, and were never updated.
submitted by Contrarian__ to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

The court asks Jeff Garzik to support his claims that the late David Kleiman was Satoshi Nakamoto

The court asks Jeff Garzik to support his claims that the late David Kleiman was Satoshi Nakamoto submitted by Actualcrypto to btc [link] [comments]

The fraud continues - Craig Wright just purposely submitted a provably fake email into evidence in the Kleiman-Wright case

Craig Wright's fraud continues. Yesterday, he submitted into evidence an email he says was from Dave Kleiman to Uyen Nguyen asking her to be a director of his 'bitcoin company' in late 2012.
It is provably fake.
Craig didn't realize that the email's PGP signature includes a signing timestamp along with the ID of the key used as metadata. Was the email actually sent in 2012? Let's find out!
The beginning of the signature is as follows: iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTH+uQAAoJELiFsXrEW+0bCacH/3K
Converted to hex, it's: 89 01 1c 04 01 01 02 00 06 05 02 53 1f eb 90 00 0a 09 10 b8 85 b1 7a c4 5b ed 1b 09 a7 07 ff 72
We know how to find the long ID of the key used and the timestamp of the signature. I've bolded the ID and italicized the timestamp. Looking on the MIT keyserver, we can find the fake* key. The timestamp of the signature is 1394600848, which is March 12, 2014, two weeks before Craig filed to install Uyen as a director of Dave's old company, and almost a year after Dave died!
We can double-check with gpg -vv. Transcribe the email and paste it in. Here's the output:
:signature packet: algo 1, keyid B885B17AC45BED1B version 4, created 1394600848, md5len 0, sigclass 0x01 digest algo 2, begin of digest 09 a7 hashed subpkt 2 len 4 (sig created 2014-03-12) subpkt 16 len 8 (issuer key ID B885B17AC45BED1B) 
(I'll note, as an aside, that Dave apparently spelled his name incorrectly and put a typo in the subject.)
*The fake key has the same pref-hash-algos as Craig's fake keys, and were never updated.
submitted by Contrarian__ to btc [link] [comments]

Let's be very clear: Kleiman v Wright is not over, case has not been decided.

A lot of misinformation and poorly sourced headlines going around. The case is not over. The only thing awarded at this point is reasonable expenses incurred while litigating the relevant motions.
So what does Reinhart's latest Order mean for the case? It establishes facts for purpose of this action (the lawsuit):
  1. Dr. Wright and David Kleiman entered into a 50/50 partnership to develop Bitcoin intellectual property and to mine bitcoin;
  2. any Bitcoin-related intellectual property developed by Dr. Wright prior to David Kleiman’s death was property of the partnership,
  3. all bitcoin mined by Dr. Wright prior to David Kleiman’s death (“the partnership’s bitcoin”) was property of the partnership when mined; and
  4. Plaintiffs presently retain an ownership interest in the partnership’s bitcoin, and any assets traceable to them.
This means that Plaintiff has no burden to prove any of the above. Defendant cannot make arguments which contradict the facts so established. Consequently, the Court has struck many of Wright's affirmative defenses:
Litigation continues, with Wright's defense severely handicapped. If Plantiff proves the charges of conversion and fraud, the damages will be calculated using the highest market value of the coins while they were unaccessible to the rightful owner. Not today's value, not the the value at the time Dave died. The highest market value since Wright took control of them until the judgement is issued. On top of that, the Court may award treble (3x) damages. An appropriate judgement would award monetary damages, meaing Wright would need to pay in dollars, not by returning stolen bitcoin.
submitted by cryptocached to bsv [link] [comments]

Theories as to why Satoshi hasn't touched his/her/their wallet

List 'em.
My theories:
  1. Satoshi is proving that Bitcoin is unhackable by publicly storing a huge fortune on the blockchain that has yet to be stolen
  2. Satoshi is ded
  3. Satoshi lost his/hetheir keys (lol)
  4. Satoshi is a group of people, and if Bitcoin ever replaces all currency, they plan on taking over the world with an oligopoly.
  5. Trump is Satoshi and he's been too busy to spend any.
  6. Satoshi was an AI and needs not your plebian monetary system
  7. Milton Friedman is Satoshi, and his casket has internet, but he has nothing to spend it on, thanks to him being in a casket
submitted by nathanweisser to btc [link] [comments]

Craig Wright's missing partners

Craig allegedly interacted with several people while he allegedly was developing bitcoin. However, almost all of them seem to be, erm, unavailable:
Any others?
Craig's wife (Emma Ramona Watts?) too had some role in Craig's companies during the "bitcoin years", but does not seem to know or say much about them.
submitted by jstolfi to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

CSW court case update: "Ira stated under oath that he never once visited his disabled and dying brother in the VA hospital or at his house, which was just five minutes away from his own home."

Ira (Dave Kleiman's brother that is attacking CSW saying he stole Dave's bitcoins) stated under oath that he never once visited his disabled and dying brother in the VA hospital or at his house, which was just five minutes away from his own home.
And, Ira stated under oath that he destroyed and compromised the evidence that Dave had in his possession at the time of his unfortunate death.
Specifically, Ira testified that he discarded Dave’s papers and the electronic device that Dave had closest to him when he was found dead at his home.
Equally troubling is the fact that the defense has been unable to access an encrypted thumb drive that Dave was known to wear around his neck.
Could Dave have had the information necessary to access his own bitcoin in the papers Ira threw away or on the electronic devices Ira blithely discarded or irreparably altered? Or could that information be contained on the encrypted thumb drive which cannot be accessed because the password can no longer be found?

source: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.200.0.pdf
submitted by zhell_ to bitcoincashSV [link] [comments]

$1.1 Million Bitcoin Lawsuit Alleging Craig Wright Is Satoshi Continues

$1.1 Million Bitcoin Lawsuit Alleging Craig Wright Is Satoshi Continues

https://preview.redd.it/mx5bhhtr11821.png?width=690&format=png&auto=webp&s=030cf243188346030302bd8e8ea1d5a9a46171ca
https://cryptoiq.co/1-1-million-bitcoin-lawsuit-alleging-craig-wright-is-satoshi-continues/
A $1.1 million Bitcoin lawsuit against Craig Wright in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida continues, with the latest ruling handed down on Dec. 27.
The plaintiff is the Estate of Dave Kleiman, and it alleges Kleiman and Wright mined 1.1 million Bitcoins together during the early days of Bitcoin, and when Kleiman died, Wright laundered the money into his own accounts and did not give anything to Kleiman’s heirs. The lawsuit further alleges that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, which has been on and off a heated debate in the crypto space.
In the latest order, the court dismisses two counts against Wright, while Wright must respond to the other seven counts by Jan. 10. Count three, which was dismissed, is an allegation that Wright misappropriated trade secrets belonging to Kleiman related to smart contracts and blockchain technology. Count four says the theft of trade secrets violates the federal defense of trade secrets act, and this count was also dismissed.
Estate Of Dave Kleiman Asks For $11.4 billion Judgement
The remaining counts which have not been dismissed are far more serious. Count one demands $11.427 billion or the return of the Bitcoins and forked assets, like Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, etc.
Count two alleges that the theft of the Bitcoins is unjust enrichment. Count five alleges that Wright breached his fiduciary duty to Kleiman. Count six alleges that Wright did not pay for Kleiman’s share of their joint company. Count seven alleges that Wright committed fraud while taking Kleiman’s assets and intellectual property, including the forging of contracts and signatures. Count eight alleges that Wright committed fraud against Dave Kleiman’s children and tried to use them to cover up the fraud. Count nine asks for a permanent injunction against Wright to return all stolen Bitcoin and intellectual property.
A jury trial is scheduled for June 10 in which these standing allegations and claims will be decided. Wright tried to have the case dismissed with a motion in April 2018, offering reasons why the court does not have jurisdiction to rule on this case. However, the judge has decided in the most recent order that it does have jurisdiction, and the case will proceed.
Evidence In The Case Alleges Craig Wright Is Satoshi
The most intriguing part of this case is the evidence presented that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto in the defendant’s amended complaint. Apparently, Wright and Kleiman met in 2003 and communicated about various technological topics for years after that. In 2008, they co-authored a paper on the mechanics of overwriting hard drive data.
In March 2008, Wright emailed Kleiman and said “I need your help editing a paper I am going to release later this year. I have been working on a new form of electronic money. Bit cash, Bitcoin … [y]ou are always there for me Dave. I want you to be part of it all.”
In late 2008, Wright sent another email to Kleiman, saying “I need your help. You edited my paper, and now I need to have you aid me build this idea.” On Jan. 12, 2009, only nine days after Bitcoin launched on Jan. 3, Wright and Kleiman sent each other Bitcoin transactions, making them some of the earliest Bitcoin users.
The lawsuit alleges that Kleiman and Wright mined 1.1 million Bitcoins together, and these are all identifiable and stored in Wright’s wallets. Wright indicated that he has this tremendous amount of Bitcoins during a speech in which he said he had more money than the country Rwanda, where he was speaking.
In May 2016, Wright claimed to be Satoshi in a series of blog posts. The best evidence that Wright is Satoshi was a blog post from early Bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen. In the post, Andresen claims that Wright signed a message with cryptographic keys that only Satoshi could possess. Ultimately Wright never released these sign messages to the public, leaving the claim in doubt, and Wright is now commonly referred to as faketoshi.
As this case enters the trial period, it will certainly shed light on the true nature of Craig Wright’s early involvement in Bitcoin, and whether he really is Satoshi Nakamoto.
submitted by turtlecane to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Loved seeing Craig Wright get called out by Vitalik today. But it begs the question, who is the real Satoshi? Who do you guys think is the most likely candidate to have created BTC?

Loved seeing Craig Wright get called out by Vitalik today. But it begs the question, who is the real Satoshi? Who do you guys think is the most likely candidate to have created BTC? submitted by BitBoyAndHodl to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

So let me ask this question again, Who is Satoshi Nakamoto, and where he is? Do we have some infos about him?

submitted by yungboss_22 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Law case complaint statement against Craig Wright says he developed bitcoin and partnered with Dave Kleiman.

But my respective comment was downvoted heavily: QUOTE You mentioned CSW. You may not like Craig Wright. But get used to the fact that he created Bitcoin and when doing so asked Dave Kleiman for help. Dave became Craigs partner.
Ira Kleiman, Daves brother sued CSW for 300 to 500 thousand Bitcoins that actually belonged to Dave, who sadly died April 2013.
Read the statement of claim to the district court of Florida from 2018 Feb 14 at the bottom of the following link: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3k74qj/craig-wright-is-being-sued-for-10-billion-dave-kleiman There cannot be a better proof than that. UNQUOTE
What's the matter with this sub? Did those who downvoted me actually read the paper? Probably not.
submitted by Felixjp to btc [link] [comments]

Craig Wright accurately accused of lying under oath, despite lies by /u/gjgjhyyt77645tyydhg5

In this recent thread, gjgjhyyt77645tyydhg5 accused me of lying or being mistaken about Craig Wright lying under oath, which I did here.
However, unsurprisingly, it turns out he was lying (or mistaken).
He said:
Part A of the afadavit mention 2 address's controlled by the "financier" Contrarian claims the addresses https://www.scribd.com/document/379265751/Kleiman-Lawsuit-Exhibit-4 . Contrarian then claims they are ,mentioned here. https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html
But they are not.
Alas, they actually are. They are the second and third addresses discussed. This statement he made becomes suddenly fairly ironic:
The idiots in btc never bother to check, they just cheer it on
I didn't see any members of this sub or the other SV sub check the claim. They simply 'cheered it on'.
I await his apology for that issue. Also, I must only assume he's changed his mind about Craig Wright's claim of being Satoshi.
He further confused himself by saying:
In the other point Contrarian doesn't understand the difference between a joint shareholding and one in one persons name.
Craig indicated the shares were held jointly. However, when one member of a jointly shared party dies, the shares go to the other member, even if the deceased had a will. Craig, moreover, claimed to subsequently be the sole shareholder and had a controlling vote in the shareholders' meeting. His shares were indicated to be in his own name, so he was undeniably a shareholder, which he subsequently denied, also under oath.
Edit: The downvotes are hilarious. Literal misinformation was upvoted, but facts are downvoted. What a sub!
submitted by Contrarian__ to bitcoinsv [link] [comments]

Did someone rule out Kleiman (Wright's dead friend) as the potential Satoshi?

I don't believe for one bit that Wright himself is Satoshi but I haven't heard much about his friend Kleiman who died in which Wright desperately tried to obtain wallet.dat files from his personal belongings through his relative. From what I remember Kleiman's death was around the time Satoshi disappeared?
Wright does seem to have been an early enthusiast and does seem to have reason to believe he can play it off as Satoshi, makes me a little more suspicious if Kleiman could have been satoshi and Wright knew that.
See more about Kleiman here: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3w3ije/interesting_facts_about_david_kleimans_life/
Edit: If you think about it Wright also could have gotten access to emails/conversations or would have been more closely involved in such conversations from Dave Kleiman's belongings, this would allow him to play off as Satoshi to Gavin in order to convince him.
submitted by Defusion55 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

"Kleiman-Prozess: Craig Wright muss 500.000 BTC abgeben"

https://www.btc-echo.de/kleiman-prozess-craig-wright-muss-500-000-btc-abgeben/
Es geht um den wohl größten digitalen Goldschatz der Geschichte. Etwa 1,1 Millionen BTC sollen sich nach Angaben von Craig Wright (CSW), selbsternannter Satoshi Nakamoto und Patent-Fließband, im sogenannten „Tulip Trust“ befinden. In Fiatgeld gerechnet beläuft sich die Summe auf sage und schreibe 11 Milliarden US-Dollar. Die Bitcoin stammen aus einem Mining-Unternehmen, das Craig Wright mit seinem damaligen Freund Dave Kleiman geführt haben soll.
Andere Überlegungen ranken sich um eine angeblich algorithmisch festgelegte Liquidierung des Trusts. So soll der Tulip Trust Anfang 2020 alle darin enthaltenen BTC in einem Schwung auf den Markt werfen. Dies geht aus einer vertraulichen Mail hervor, die Wright angeblich am 9.6. 2011 von Kleiman erhalten haben soll. Darin legt der Verstorbene fest, dass die 1,1 Millionen BTC aus dem Trust am 1.1.2020 an Wright übergehen sollen.
So spannend kann Bitcoin sein, wenn gemenschelt wird;-)
LG
siggi
submitted by siggi2018 to Debitismus_Forum [link] [comments]

Is this true? What is the explanation?

"Craig Wright's fraud continues. Yesterday, he submitted into evidence an email he says was from Dave Kleiman to Uyen Nguyen asking her to be a director of his 'bitcoin company' in late 2012.
It is provably fake.
Craig didn't realize that the email's PGP signature includes a signing timestamp along with the ID of the key used as metadata. Was the email actually sent in 2012? Let's find out!
The beginning of the signature is as follows: iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTH+uQAAoJELiFsXrEW+0bCacH/3K
Converted to hex, it's: 89 01 1c 04 01 01 02 00 06 05 02 53 1f eb 90 00 0a 09 10 b8 85 b1 7a c4 5b ed 1b 09 a7 07 ff 72
We know how to find the long ID of the key used and the timestamp of the signature. I've bolded the ID and italicized the timestamp. Looking on the MIT keyserver, we can find the fake* key. The timestamp of the signature is 1394600848, which is March 12, 2014, two weeks before Craig filed to install Uyen as a director of Dave's old company, and almost a year after Dave died!
We can double-check with gpg -vv . Transcribe the email and paste it in. Here's the output:
:signature packet: algo 1, keyid B885B17AC45BED1B version 4, created 1394600848, md5len 0, sigclass 0x01 digest algo 2, begin of digest 09 a7 hashed subpkt 2 len 4 (sig created 2014-03-12) subpkt 16 len 8 (issuer key ID B885B17AC45BED1B) 
(I'll note, as an aside, that Dave apparently spelled his name incorrectly and put a typo in the subject.)
*The fake key has the same pref-hash-algos as Craig's fake keys, and were never updated.
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/bdxjuy/the_fraud_continues_craig_wright_just_purposely/
submitted by Mikeroyale to bitcoincashSV [link] [comments]

Craig Wright Already Has Key to Encrypted ‘Satoshi’ File — Kleiman Kleiman vs Craig Wright - Getting the Facts Straight - CryptoTime Ep. 24 - Bitstocks Crypto News Bitcoin.com Exchange Opens This Week, Craig Wright Loses Against Kleiman Estate and a lot more Lawsuit Filed Against Man Who Claims He Invented Bitcoin The Bitcoin 79% Club, Are You In? + Billions in Bitcoin Ready To Change Hands in Kleiman Case!

The squalor surrounding their partner’s death and final days is the biggest sticking point for both Paige and Conrad about the idea that Kleiman was involved with Bitcoin. Wright and Kleiman supposedly mined 1 million Bitcoins together, but when Kleiman died Wright did not give any of this Bitcoin to Kleiman’s children, which is what caused this lawsuit. An important piece of evidence in this lawsuit is the list of Wright’s Bitcoin holdings. Wright submitted a list of 16,000 Bitcoin addresses that he claimed ... If that was true, Kleiman was likely sitting on a fortune when he died in April 2013—even if he were in possession of only half of Satoshi’s fabled million-bitcoin stockpile, that would have ... After Mr. Kleiman died, the Plaintiffs allege that Wright “unlawfully and without permission took control of the bitcoins from the Estate and from W&K once he had exclusive possession over the ... Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. You might be interested in Bitcoin if you like cryptography, distributed peer-to-peer systems, or economics.

[index] [13583] [8886] [22396] [1502] [21707] [11249] [32673] [1377] [19313] [9018]

Craig Wright Already Has Key to Encrypted ‘Satoshi’ File — Kleiman

Wright Kleiman case results in billions in Bitcoin changing hands. Fake volume continues to be a problem, and new Binance lending service! EARN 8% ON YOUR BITCOIN & GET $50 FREE AFTER STAKING 50 MCO Ira Kleiman’s legal team claims Dr Craig Wright already has the ability to open the encrypted file believed to contain the private keys to more than 820,000 Bitcoin. The Kleiman estate is suing ... According to a cache of documents provided to Gizmodo which were corroborated interviews, Craig Steven Wright, an Australian businessman based in Sydney, and Dave Kleiman, an American computer ... Though the Kleiman vs Craig Wright ruling only took place on Monday (26 August 2019), we've already seen a ton of sensational media flood social channels. Much of the commentary smacks of ... Heute geht's um folgende Themen: Craig Wright muss 50% der Bitcoins an Kleiman abtreten, Binance startet Krypto Kredite & Dash Convention Europe Ticketverlosung. 1.) CRAIG WRIGHT REPORTEDLY MUST ...

#