WizSec

Yeah, Vessenes is so far inside that he has a massive conflict of interest in this case. He's also acted in pretty bad faith. Here's the story from a knowledgeable outsider: https://blog.wizsec.jp/2019/04/coinlab-v-mtgox-imaginarium-of-peter.ht… Even putting aside the Mt. Gox bankruptcy, the original contract with CoinLab looks pretty bad: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.192566.1.1.pdf They agreed on damages of $50M if either side breached the contract but neither party ever had nearly that much money and the deal was only worth less than $1M per year. IANAL but this seems like a dumb suicide pact.

If anybody wants the full sordid history from an investigative standpoint, check out Kim Nilsson's great writeups[1][2] and presentation[3]. [1] http://blog.wizsec.jp/2017/07/breaking-open-mtgox-1.html [2] http://blog.wizsec.jp/2017/07/comments-on-mark-karpeles-trial.html [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l70iRcSxqzo

> evasion of governmental restrictions ... core use case for Bitcoin I think you're absolutely right, with the caveat that... Yes, just because people are coming to Bitcoin with this in mind, does not mean that ultimately Bitcoin is successful at that use case. Graphs like this coin flow graph[1] and the story[2] that goes with it, make claims that Bitcoin users can more successfully evade government restrictions, seem particularly dubious. Coinbase, a licensed Money Service business, follows Know Your Customer and grows increasingly interested in their customers. I recently had to answer a follow-up survey about how I use Bitcoin and where my income is coming from, in order to withdraw less than $1000. It would have been pretty easy to lie on this survey (and the questions were particularly non-invasive) but there's not really any doubt in my mind that Bitcoin is a platform where the users can be tracked. We're running out of examples of major Bitcoin heists that went unsolved. Bitcoin is absolutely more trackable than cash, and in a lot of cases (although maybe not so much for "tracking users" who are associated with governments, that already likely do have access to databases which the rest of us don't... but for the unprivileged anonymous internet users who are interested in tracking) Bitcoin is significantly more transparent and even more trackable than the banking system. [1]: http://wizsec.jp/images/theft_flow.svg [2]:…

If you've been keeping up with your claim filings you should get around 1.1 to 1.25 BTC (estimate from https://blog.wizsec.jp/2021/02/mtgox-claim-calculator.html?m=1)

Re: the 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF address Craig Wright is claiming, others believe the coins in it were stolen from Mt Gox: https://cointelegraph.com/news/former-mt-gox-ceo-mark-karpeles-craig-w… https://blog.wizsec.jp/2020/06/mtgox-march-2011-theft.html

Wizsec commentary: https://blog.wizsec.jp/2019/08/kleiman-v-wright-part-5.html Full court ruling: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscou…

Kim Nilsson's work is as good and unbiased as it comes and it pretty much explains everything you need to know about the missing coins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l70iRcSxqzo https://blog.wizsec.jp/2015/04/the-missing-mtgox-bitcoins.html Btw, with your 350 coins, I hope you've already submitted a claim and are planning to vote on the upcoming Civil Rehabilitation plan.

This post is an interesting analysis of the wallets referenced in the lawsuit. Apparently neither Wright or Kleiman ever controlled any of them. http://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html

I would not take any of the claims at face value. This article's submitter also has a top comment pointing to a piece calling all claims into question (http://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html).

An interesting analysis of the evidence here: Breaking open the MtGox case, part 1 http://blog.wizsec.jp/2017/07/breaking-open-mtgox-1.html

http://blog.wizsec.jp/2017/07/breaking-open-mtgox-1.html He is guy who has been identified in MtGox hacking

Could you elaborate? The most recent report I've seen, http://blog.wizsec.jp/2015/02/mtgox-investigation-release.html, says: >Willy bought a very large amount of bitcoin on MtGox during the period of September 27 – November 30 during 2013 (and later, though the leaked logs end on this date), a total of over 250,000 BTC. There is a very high probability that this had a large effect on the price of bitcoin, opening up the possibility that this may have been a plan to manipulate the market rather than (or in addition to) fraudulently acquiring bitcoins. and >There are even some suspicious incidents where Willy becomes absent and soon afterwards the market "corrects" itself to a lower price level.

It is a lie, since Bitcoin Cash never moved funds that weren't signed by their owners. You're going to have to prove that, now, or admit you overspoke. The direct counter-evidence against Craig's claimed key ownership are the facts that many of his claimed addresses signed that he was a fraud, that Wizsec showed that the 1feex address was actually stolen MtGox funds (and nothing to with Craig at all,) the court records of Klein v. Wright showing he completely made up the list of claimed addresses by instructing Shadders (a shoddy programmer from nChain) to construct the list entirely algorithmically from broken precepts. So no, it wasn't just "one" key. It was dozens. (Lots of addresses that Craig claimed were his, signing that Wright is a fraud): https://craigwright.lol/ (An outline of why the 1feex are entirely NOT Wright's Bitcoins): https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html https://blog.wizsec.jp/2020/06/mtgox-march-2011-theft.html (An ultra-early miner, maybe the second miner, signing his own early blocks proving they aren't Craig's, either): https://twitter.com/druidian/status/1447833107143483393 You are doing a slippery thing here by claiming that your directly-falsifiable statement about Bitcoin Cash being a "precedent" where "developers control the funds"—while now in the above statement claiming that this was actually in regards to Satoshi likely not stepping up to defend his own key ownership. You clearly don't know what you're…

Have you spent any amount of time reviewing the claims against his "proof"? We're talking about purchasing backdated companies(ie, the Tulip Trust), referencing products that didn't exist at the time they were allegedly used, sharing PDFs with obvious edits, etc. Here's a good analysis of Craig's own testimony from last week and the inconsistencies: https://blog.wizsec.jp/2019/07/kleiman-v-craig-wright-part-3.html > I'm more interested in the truth The only way he is telling the truth is if an enormous number of claims is a massive conspiracy theory. > The truth is that I don't know if he is Satoshi or not You don't know I'm not Satoshi. I don't have to prove it: > If someone fails to prove A that does not mean that (not A) is true > I would expect more from the HN community. True. We do have a habit of hero worship (ie Jobs, Musk, etc) so perhaps we should similarly believe Wright just because he said to.

Media outlets claiming that the arrested guy is also a suspect for MtGox theft. https://twitter.com/coindesk/status/890256080965599232 I've personally looked at BTC-e's trade histories and am not inclined to believe this. BTC-e's weak security track record also doesn't exactly support this theory either. EDIT: I guess wizsec came through http://blog.wizsec.jp/2017/07/breaking-open-mtgox-1.html >To be clear, this investigation turned up evidence to identify Vinnik not as a hacker/thief but as a money launderer; his arrest news also suggests this is what he is being suspected for. He may have merely bought cheap coins from thieves and offered a laundering service. He is, however, a crucial piece of the puzzle, as he will have likely known who he was dealing with and laundering for, and so represents a major breakthrough in the case. We assume that law enforcement will now be taking the appropriate next steps to pursue all the remaining angles and hopefully identify the other individuals involved as well.