COPA 在“中本聰”審判中向克雷格·賴特施加壓力

英國(guó)高等法院正在進(jìn)行的 COPA 程序已進(jìn)入第二週，該程序涉及澳大利亞計(jì)算機(jī)科學(xué)家克雷格·賴特 (Craig Wright)，他是比特幣起源爭(zhēng)論的核心人物。

在激烈的質(zhì)證過(guò)程中，賴特發(fā)現(xiàn)自己與主審法官和對(duì)方律師發(fā)生了衝突，對(duì)方律師要求他停止一連串“無(wú)關(guān)緊要的指控”，集中精力討論案件的核心問(wèn)題。

COPA 審判第二週：克雷格·賴特 (Craig Wright) 的陳述

賴特的聲明和反駁一直是這一進(jìn)程的焦點(diǎn)，該進(jìn)程由加密貨幣開放專利聯(lián)盟（COPA）發(fā)起，這是一個(gè)由加密貨幣行業(yè)知名人士支持的非營(yíng)利組織。

COPA 聲稱克雷格·賴特（Craig Wright）進(jìn)行了「工業(yè)規(guī)模」的偽造，試圖證明自己是比特幣的創(chuàng)造者（化名中本聰）。

在審判期間，克雷格·賴特繼續(xù)將其論點(diǎn)不一致的責(zé)任歸咎於各種個(gè)人和實(shí)體。

這種趨勢(shì)在他最近的盤問(wèn)中得到了延續(xù)，賴特對(duì)加密貨幣社區(qū)的成員提出了新的指控，同時(shí)面臨著在法庭上提供相互矛盾的敘述的指控。

當(dāng)賴特指責(zé) COPA 成員實(shí)施「金錢上下波動(dòng)的騙局」時(shí)，雙方的言論達(dá)到了頂峰，促使主審法官詹姆斯·梅勒介入。

梅勒提醒賴特，此案的目標(biāo)是確定他是否真正是中本聰，並強(qiáng)調(diào)比特幣系統(tǒng)當(dāng)前狀態(tài)的爭(zhēng)論與訴訟程序無(wú)關(guān)。

儘管賴特試圖透過(guò)將不一致歸咎於外部因素（例如第三方編輯的錯(cuò)誤歸因錯(cuò)誤以及他前妻與疾病的鬥爭(zhēng)）來(lái)轉(zhuǎn)移審查，但對(duì)方律師、Bird & Bird LLP 的喬納森·霍夫（Jonathan Hough）仍然冷漠地質(zhì)疑賴特的觀點(diǎn)。索賠。

賴特之前的證詞之間的不一致之處

賴特先前的證詞與他目前關(guān)於比特幣歷史關(guān)鍵事件的說(shuō)法之間存在明顯差異，這引發(fā)了霍夫關(guān)於賴特帳戶一致性的具體問(wèn)題。

一個(gè)值得注意的案例涉及賴特的聲明，即他在 2009 年比特幣誕生時(shí)並沒(méi)有高度重視，這與他之前關(guān)於他參與比特幣創(chuàng)建的聲明相矛盾。

賴特表示，他認(rèn)為比特幣只是一種獲得合作關(guān)係或教授職位的潛在方式，淡化了他在比特幣發(fā)展中的作用。

However, Hough’s examination of Wright’s testimony revealed inconsistencies and contradictions, highlighting the challenges that Wright must face to prove his claims. Despite Wright’s insistence on the truthfulness of his account, the evolving nature of his statements raises doubts about their reliability.

In addition, Wright’s announcement of the discovery of a new “box” of evidence, presumably brought to light by his wife, adds an additional level of complexity to the process.

This development can prolong the process and further complicate the evaluation of the evidence presented by both parties.

As Wright’s cross-examination extends to the fifth day, the court remains focused on uncovering the truth behind his statements.

The incessant examination by the opposing lawyer and the presiding judge underscores the importance of this trial in determining the legitimacy of Wright’s claim as the inventor of Bitcoin.

Regardless of the outcome, the process represents a crucial moment in the ongoing saga about the origins of Bitcoin, shedding light on the complexities and controversies inherent in the realm of cryptocurrencies.

As Wright’s testimony continues to undergo intense scrutiny, the court’s verdict will have far-reaching implications for the future of Bitcoin and the broader crypto ecosystem.

What does Craig Wright’s COPA process entail for the entire crypto ecosystem

Beyond the judicial drama, the trial also highlights broader implications for the cryptocurrency industry and the concept of intellectual property within decentralized ecosystems.

The legal challenge of COPA against Wright reflects a concerted effort within the cryptocurrency community to protect innovation and prevent the exploitation of fundamental technologies for personal purposes.

At the center of the issue lies the problem of the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto and the legacy of Bitcoin’s creation. Since the birth of Bitcoin, the enigmatic figure of Nakamoto has captured the imagination of enthusiasts and scholars.

The prospect of unmasking Nakamoto has fueled intense speculation and debate, with Wright’s claim of the pseudonym sparking controversy and skepticism within the cryptographic community.

The outcome of the process has significant consequences for the credibility and legitimacy of Wright’s claims and for the broader perception of the origins of Bitcoin. If Wright fails to prove his claims in court, this could undermine his credibility and raise doubts about his role in the creation of Bitcoin.

On the contrary, a favorable verdict for Wright could strengthen his reputation and potentially reshape the narrative about the birth of Bitcoin.

In addition, the process highlights the difficulties of establishing ownership and intellectual property rights within decentralized systems like Bitcoin.

與受集中機(jī)構(gòu)和法律框架管轄的傳統(tǒng)形式的智慧財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)不同，加密貨幣在優(yōu)先考慮去中心化和透明度的分散式網(wǎng)路上運(yùn)作。

因此，確定這些系統(tǒng)中的所有權(quán)和親子關(guān)係提出了傳統(tǒng)法律機(jī)制可能難以解決的獨(dú)特挑戰(zhàn)。

結(jié)論

無(wú)論該過(guò)程的結(jié)果如何，它都不太可能最終解決有關(guān)比特幣起源的爭(zhēng)論。圍繞中本聰身分的謎團(tuán)注定會(huì)持續(xù)存在，讓密碼學(xué)界的猜測(cè)和陰謀永久化。

然而，這個(gè)過(guò)程代表了探索比特幣歷史和加密貨幣領(lǐng)域更廣泛演進(jìn)的關(guān)鍵時(shí)刻。

隨著對(duì)賴特的盤問(wèn)繼續(xù)，焦點(diǎn)仍然集中在法庭訴訟上。 Wright 和 COPA 之間的法律鬥爭(zhēng)概括了揭開比特幣創(chuàng)造之謎所涉及的緊張局勢(shì)和複雜性。

無(wú)論審判最終使敘述變得清晰還是進(jìn)一步複雜化，其意義都超越了法庭，塑造了密碼學(xué)界內(nèi)外的看法和討論。

歸根結(jié)底，這個(gè)過(guò)程代表了比特幣起源傳奇中的關(guān)鍵時(shí)刻，見證了圍繞世界上最著名的加密貨幣的魅力和爭(zhēng)議。

在此過(guò)程中，觀察者和參與者正在等待裁決，該裁決將對(duì)整個(gè)加密貨幣領(lǐng)域產(chǎn)生影響，影響未來(lái)幾年的看法、敘述和辯論。