“The Lawyer You Know” Peter Tragos talks about the Satoshi case in Florida with Kurt Wuckert Jr of CoinGeek.


The Kleiman v Wright trial is now nearing its conclusion. It’s been an interesting and insightful journey so far, and from the start Florida-based attorney Peter Tragos has shared his thoughts on how things are going.

The self-proclaimed digital currency and blockchain novice shared weekly updates summarizing the discussions. This week, he was joined by Kurt Wuckert Jr. of CoinGeek for a live discussion on Week 3.

The origins of digital money systems and Satoshi Nakamoto

After briefly introducing Kurt Wuckert Jr. to his audience, Peter Tragos invited him to explain a bit about the history of Bitcoin. While maintaining that he knows little about it, this was an opportunity for Tragos and his audience to hear about the history of Bitcoin from an expert in the field.

Kurt rightly pointed out that digital money systems date back to the 1970s. There have been many attempts to create them before, but none succeeded or lasted long until Bitcoin.

Going straight into the story, Kurt explained how there are a lot of theories about who Satoshi Nakamoto might be right off the bat. He explained how, in 2015, Wired and Gizmodo both doxxed Dr. Craig Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto. They also mentioned Dave Kleiman, sowing the seeds for the ongoing Kleiman v Wright trial.

Briefly covering the Bitcoin Civil War, Kurt informed Tragos that the community largely dismissed Dr. Wright as a fraudster because they didn’t like what he had to say. Being a big blocker who believes Bitcoin moves endlessly on the chain, many crypto-anarchists who hijacked Bitcoin in the beginning couldn’t accept Dr Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto.

What does the Kleiman vs. Wright case mean for Bitcoin?

Asking how the plaintiffs plan to raise if they win and how it would even be possible, Kurt told Tragos about some of the nuances of the case. Stakes :

  • The $ 65 billion worth of Bitcoin and IP.
  • What have the plaintiffs seen to prompt them to spend tens of millions on legal fees and years of time?
  • Is Dr. Wright really Satoshi Nakamoto, and what evidence does he have if so?

There is no doubt that the case will have massive implications for Bitcoin. Either Dr. Wright is its creator, in which case he is the greatest authority on Bitcoin, or he is not, which would mean the end of the road for this narrative.

The collection and the keys are not an identity

Insisting on how the plaintiffs plan to collect, Tragos said he was not sure the U.S. legal system is sophisticated enough to handle this. If Dr. Wright doesn’t want to pay in the end, how would the courts do it?

At this point, Kurt explained Dr. Wright’s long-standing position that you don’t need keys to move Bitcoin and that miners can be required by law to update the ledger. Bitcoin is subject to the law and does not exist outside of it, Kurt explained, and the idea that laws do not apply on Bitcoin is a myth.

Of course, Kurt pointed out that there could be a chain break with some miners refusing to comply. However, if that happens, they will eventually realize that they are exploiting the minority channel and losing money, and they will come back. This is how Bitcoin was designed to work, he informed Tragos, and regulated entities will follow the law.

Tragos then asked Kurt if the assets could be frozen by governments. “I don’t see why not,” Kurt replied, pointing out that governments have brought down Liberty Reserve and other supposedly decentralized systems.

What are the sides of Bitcoin? Civil war

Tragos asked Kurt to further explain the sides of Bitcoin. He mentioned that he was accused of bias by one party and that the other thanked him for his impartiality, which baffled him. He later said he was shocked at the intensity of tribalism in Bitcoin.

Briefly covering the Bitcoin civil war between small blockers and big blockers, Kurt explained the history of the fight for Bitcoin and how one party wants to limit Bitcoin to a block size of 1MB and chain it. Rather, the other wants to set him free and follow Satoshi’s original vision for unlimited scaling and a global economic tool and computing system.

“Our goal in BSV, in short, is to replace the Internet with Bitcoin“said Wuckert.

Explaining how Bitcoin made micropayments possible and how many original features were removed, Kurt explained how the story went from Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer payment system whether it is an investment asset. Highlighting the irony of this fraud case when Bitcoin was designed to be an anti-fraud tool, Kurt explained to Tragos how it might work to make cases like this much easier to resolve in the future.

Refocus on the case– do the complainants have any evidence?

Tragos asked Kurt if he had seen anything that would suggest that Ira Kleiman had a case, and Kurt said no, although he admitted his bias in favor of Dr. Wright.

While Kurt may indeed be biased, an objective analysis of the situation reveals that this claim is true. Oddly, the plaintiffs appear to have spent the first two weeks using emails as evidence before pointing out that they could be forged, thus undermining their own body of evidence for a Kleiman and Wright partnership.

Kurt went on to explain how the defense had so far demonstrated that there had been no partnership. He pointed out that all circumstantial evidence arose after Dave Kleiman’s death and that Dave’s close friend in Florida had sworn under oath that he couldn’t code and didn’t even mention Bitcoin in the last few years of his life.

Tragos, as a professional lawyer, stressed that he did not believe sympathy would win out for the complainant. He said that in his experience, juries do not look fondly on absent and contentious brothers.

While Dave Kleiman’s will names Ira as the sole beneficiary, Kurt pointed out that the evidence showed the relationship between the two was one of estrangement. Ira Kleiman was absent in the last days of his brother’s life, and Dr. Wright didn’t even know he existed despite a close friendship with Dave.

Is Dr Craig Wright Really Satoshi?

Towards the end of the one-on-one portion of the discussion, Tragos bluntly asked Kurt if he believed Dr. Wright to be Satoshi.

Emphasizing that he was initially not sure what role Dave Kleiman would play, Kurt told Tragos he thinks it is far more likely than not that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.

Why is that ? For Kurt, it boils down to the fact that Dr Wright knows things about Bitcoin that only Satoshi could know and the coding style of Bitcoin, which is an academic and old-fashioned style rather than that of a coder. commercial. Dr. Wright fits this profile perfectly.

Asking why the debate is so heated in Bitcoin over whether or not Dr. Wright is Satoshi, Tragos explained how baffled he was with some of the answers in his videos. Kurt tells him that he thinks Dr. Wright is an existential threat to the wealth of many who have become “really wealthy by accident,” hence the intensity of the campaign against him.


It was another informative and revealing video from Peter Tragos this week, and we look forward to it covering week four. This week is expected to be the most revealing of all, with Dr Wright once again taking the helm to be directly examined by the defense.

Will we know for sure that Dr. Wright is Satoshi by the end of this week? Stay tuned for real-time coverage.

CoinGeek features Kurt Wuckert Jr. in recap coverage that will air live daily at 6:30 p.m. EST on our Youtube channel.

Check out all of CoinGeek’s special reports on the Kleiman vs. Wright YouTube Playlist.

New to Bitcoin? Discover CoinGeek Bitcoin for beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learning more about Bitcoin — as originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto — and blockchain.


Comments are closed.