Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nursie | Hacker News Reader

Isn't this guy literally billions in the hole to the estate of someone he claims was his partner in creating BTC, and who is co-owner of the Satoshi hoard of coins which haven't moved (ever)? Did that court case ever finish or is he still using every trick in the book to draw it out?

(Kleiman v. Wright, that's what I'm thinking of) (Looks like it got kicked back to June this year due to covid)

View on HN

Yes, he failed to produce any keys, the courier with the keys never materialized, the judge has not thrown Craig Wright in jail for contempt of court nor has be been charged with perjury. The judge seems to be mildly entertained by this and views Craig Wright as mentally ill, but won't have him committed. It is all sad and strange. There are a lot of guardrails against using the system this way, but they aren't being used.

As near as I can tell they're letting Craig Wright cosplay being Satoshi because it's another useful way of inhibiting Bitcoin's adoption and annoying the real Satoshi, wherever he is out there.

There’s nothing to suggest this one judge is part of any plan. This is just a judge playing “choose your own adventure” with live characters arguing over something he doesn't care about while providing some form of escapism.

Why do you believe this judge is part of an over-arching conspiracy of powerful but mute people who are attempting to inhibit the adoption of bitcoin through cosplay?

Why wouldn't those super-intelligent, powerful people do something about the actual Chicago based exchange that already trades Bitcoins?

It would be an entirely different judge in a different case that would have to have him committed, not a judge in a lawsuit in which he's a party, no?

In the US it's not easy to commit people- you generally need to prove that they are a danger to themselves or others. Judges just can't randomly commit people against their will, especially if it has nothing to do with the case in front of them. They can hold people in contempt, but that's a whole different thing.

It's not easy to get someone committed long term, in my experience, but startlingly easy to get someone forcefully admitted against their will for a 'short-term' stay, that may (does) turn into longer term care.

You need three things: 1. a person who is naturally combative, 2. a wellness check performed by the police, and 3. an underfunded mental health facility.

The police show up and the person gets combative, naturally. The police then swear the person is a danger to themselves and/or others. The person is committed, short-term, for evaluation. During this evaluation process, the person refuses to follow prescribed treatments; in an underfunded facility this treatment is generally accompanied by powerful psychoactive drugs, that most people, especially naturally difficult people, will refuse. Then comes long-term care.

Now, I know it's not the context of a judge ordering it, but it really isn't that difficult to do.

Source: you wouldn't believe the things I have seen in my career in higher education. Some people and especially controlling families are truly, absolutely, evil.

Also, needs to be a person who does not have family with the monetary and system-navigating resources to try to keep them from getting committed. Poor and/or alone, not able to appear and speak like a "respectable professional", you're fucked.

Or in your example if you have family that wants you to be committed and has money and the ability to appear and speak professionally and navigate beurocracies, oh yeah you're never coming back.

I don't know why it looks like you're being downvoted. Your comment adds to the conversation, and is correct.

The students who have the hardest time with this sort of controlling family are the ones who have family that are wealthy and well-connected. That's not saying there aren't low-income folks with these problems; they just don't know how to navigate the systems.

He should either be thrown in prison for contempt of court until the keys are revealed.

Charged with perjury when he tells the truth to get out of court-jail.

Or committed to an institution because he is mentally unfit and that it would be unconscionable for him to face penal consequences for his delusions.

None of this is happening and the judge is clearly entertained.

Is pathological lying (narcism, borderline personality, whatever) a mental illness that requires being committed? He should be prevented from hurting other people for sure. And who knows... with his personality he may thrive in jail.

If you are lying "to yourself", as in, really believing your lies, it may be because you are showing you are delusional. Of course that delusion has to be really dangerous for you or others.

When a mentally-unstable person uses the courts improperly, the court can label them "vexatious litigant" [0]. Then they must receive permission from a judge to file any new lawsuits. Courts don't do such things quickly.

It's not the job of courts to force people into the care of the a mental institution. The government must petition the court for permission to do that and show that the person is a danger to themselves or others [1]. Sometimes a court will recommend mental hospital rather than prison for a convicted criminal. This Craig Wright person doesn't seem to be using violence on himself or others and hasn't been accused of a crime. Therefore the system will not force him into a mental institution.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanterman–Petris–Short_Act

Nitpicking here, but does Australia use the same legal standard for involuntary commitment?

Yes, that fraud

>> the Satoshi hoard of coins which haven't moved (ever)

What type of math problem has to be cracked to claim that stash?

Basically you have to crack hard crypto. With key lengths long enough and no mathematical weaknesses discovered in the algorithm it could easily take until the heat death of the universe.

Can't quantum computers theoretically break elliptic curve cryptography? I suspect we'll get there a bit before the heat death of the universe.

Bitcoin is actually somewhat hardened to quantum computers. Quantum computers can break ECC but are much less effective against hash functions. You can't attack the public key offline because it's not usually part of the blockchain, only the fingerprint is.

The famous ECDLP or Elliptic Curve Discrete Log Problem, upon which a large part of Bitcoin's security rests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic-curve_cryptography#Ra...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com