Thread by @MyLegacyKit, Craig Wright - *Hacked*The most ridiculous part of Craig Wright's "Opposition To [...]

Craig Wright - *Hacked*

The most ridiculous part of Craig Wright's "Opposition To Plaintiffs' Omnibus Motion In Limine" is where his counsel has the bloody nerves to support the stupid narrative that Craig has been *hacked*.

Let's explore this subject a bit more.

1/12

"ample evidence", and then they link the December 2015 Gizmodo article. Of course they wouldn't link the Wired article, because in 2019 Wired changed their title to:

"Is Bitcoin's Creator this Unknown Australian Genius? Probably Not (Updated)"

And... oops.

"fraudulent"

2/12

But how came these Wired & Gizmodo articles to life?

Let's go back to 2014. In 2014, Craig desperately tried to get traction as a candidate for the Satoshi role on his blog.

With backdated forgeries.

And that failed. Nobody paid attention.

3/12

So in 2015, still no one noticing his blog posts, Craig Wright got very, very frustrated. Craig showed that frustration on the Amazon website, commenting on Nathaniel Popper's book "Digital Gold".

4/12

A few weeks later, Craig started to send his *hacked* forgeries around. Newsweek, New York Times (where Nathaniel Popper works): not interested.

In November 2015, Wired & Gizmodo were interested. But the *hacker* told 2 different stories...

From:
https://splinternews.com/who-is-the-hacker-that-outed-craig-wright-as-the-creato-1793853449

5/12

Splinter News:

"What does seem clear though is that Craig Wright was involved in doxing himself."

And Gizmodo? A few days later they rectified the article that Craig's counsel is linking, but of course team Andres Rivero will not tell you that.

https://gizmodo.com/the-mystery-of-craig-wright-and-bitcoin-isnt-solved-yet-1747576675

6/12

Then, Craig Wright's counsel scribbles down a series of emails & quotes where Craig being hacked is mentioned. At closer inspection, the source of all this info is... Craig, who again fails to deliver any evidence of these *hacks*, and that was exactly the point!

7/12

"defendant is [...] for hackers"

No. Craig Wright, not part of the bitcoin community as he supports an altcoin, is the clown of the industry. He pays to be able to speak at conferences, and his patents don't sell nor get quotes as prior art since 2015. Craig is irrelevant.

8/12

Let's have a look at the pattern of these *hacks*. It doesn't take much effort to observe: Craig's forgeries circulate as long as they seem to work within a certain audience, and only when they are called out as a forgery: Craig declares *hack*.

9/12

To add, Craig Wright has accused numerous people, from "ex-staff" to "Blockstream" to "Ira Kleiman" and whoever else, of these *hacks*. Meanwhile, he never investigated these *hacks* properly nor put someone in court for these presumed *hacks*.

Please explain, Craig?

10/12

Let's have a look at all the *hacks*.

- Contracts
- Job appointments
- Shareholder minutes
- Emails
- Transcripts
- Online payments
- Invoices
- Official filings
- Signatures

All *hacks* had one purpose: to *prove* Craig is Satoshi & owns Bitcoin.

Wait, what?

11/12

To end, this is how Craig Wright currently describes himself. This "skilled" individual allowed, and still allows, all types of hacking by all kinds of hackers, who were not out to steal money, but only to "edit data".

How believable is that, team Andres Rivero? Well?

12/12

To end, this is how Craig Wright currently describes himself. This "skilled" individual allowed, and still allows, all types of hacking by all kinds of hackers, who were not out to steal money, but only to "edit data".How believable is that, team Andres Rivero? Well? 12/12

Latest Threads Unrolled: