Who Is the Inventor of Bitcoin? We Do Not Know, We Do Now Know Who It Is Not.

The English High Court's intellectual property judgments are internationally well-regarded for their thoroughness and easy digestibility. Even when the judges have reached a conclusion at trial, most often they prefer to reflect on the case and ensure that nothing is missed which might cause a change of mind. Their analysis and decision then is handed down in a written judgment. This thoroughness means that, compared to other jurisdictions, High Court decisions are appealed less and are less likely to succeed. However, it does come at the price of a delay between the end of a trial and judgment being handed down.

Final judgments are rarely issued at the end of a trial. When they are, this emphasises that the judge has no doubts about the right decision. In a recent example of this, a High Court judge stated that the “evidence was overwhelming" in an unusual case over who invented Bitcoin.

The inventor of Bitcoin's identity always has been a mystery. In cryptocurrency folklore, someone going by the name of Satoshi Nakamoto is the inventor, but no one knows who Satoshi Nakamoto is. Step forward Dr. Craig Wright, an Australian scientist who since 2016 has claimed that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. Many in the field have considered this claim dubious, leading to a case being brought in the Intellectual Property Court of the High Court in London. The case was brought by the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA), which claimed that Dr. Wright’s claim and the legal actions he had pursued on that basis was damaging the cryptocurrency markets. COPA claimed that, among other things, Dr. Wright had carried out a campaign of dishonesty and forgery, including forging documents during the trial.

A key strand to Dr Wright’s defence was that if he was not the inventor, then the real Satoshi Nakamoto would have come forward to dispute his claims.

At the end of the trial, Judge James Mellor ruled that “Dr Wright is not the person who adopted or operated under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto” and “Dr Wright is not the person who created the Bitcoin system.” He did not deliver his detailed reasons for such a conclusion. A written judgment will follow in which we can expect Dr. Wright and his evidence to receive a roasting.

The High Court's judgment is not of course binding on other jurisdictions, but it will make Dr. Wright’s claims in other jurisdictions more challenging, particularly given the esteem with which English High Court judgments are held.

In the meantime, the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto and the inventor of Bitcoin continues to be a mystery.