Craig Wright Vs Bitcoin Developer: Legal Feud Regarding BTC Asset Ownership

JAKARTA - In a lawsuit that has attracted the attention of the crypto community, a Bitcoin (BTC) developer who is being sued by Craig Wright, a figure who claims to be the inventor of Bitcoin, has raised an initial objection to claims that Bitcoin developers have failed in carrying out fiduciary duties to help recover more than USD 2.5 billion worth of BTC (IDR 38.3 trillion) lost due to hacking.

In an initial application filed in the UK High Court, the BTC developer argues that there is no evidence to suggest that Wright or his company owns or controls stolen assets.

On August 21, Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund revealed that around 111,000 BTC are currently in two addresses, namely 12ib7 and 1FeeX. In particular, the 1FeeX address was linked to funds related to the famous hack on the Mt. Gox exchange in 2014.

The developer confirmed that if Wright claimed BTC ownership at address 1FeeX, then he indirectly acknowledged involvement in the hack. Subsequently, they highlighted Wright's company's failure to prove how he got Bitcoin or provide evidence for asset loss in hacking attacks.

Therefore, in this initial application, efforts were made to place the burden of proof of previous ownership of 111,000 BTC on Wright. If this requirement is met, then Wright must prove his ownership before the court can consider issues about fiduciary duties.

Meanwhile, this petition highlights Wright's history of forgery and honest shortcomings in some cases, including in the court proceedings. In their quote, "He has proven to be a very dishonest individual, and the defendant argues that this process is Dr. Wright's attempt, through Tulip Trading Ltd, to abuse the British court as a means of fraud. This is a serious accusation that cannot be ignored."

Craig Wright, who often claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the anonymous creator of Bitcoin, has become a controversy in the cryptocurrency community. However, his significant role in the world of Bitcoin has given him the strategic influence he continues to take advantage of in various legal actions.