Craig Wright ordered to hand over half of his alleged Bitcoin holdings

It seems like the heirs of the other guy are finding legal ways to rob an insane person. It's gross the judge has not apparantly even considered this. Wright is a pathological liar. He makes stuff up constantly to get attention. Although this is a huge flaw, it's unreasonable to allow this to create facts for some other party that weren't proven in the normal way, ie a written contract.

Forget whether he actually has any bitcoin—there's no way he (or anyone else) would just hand over 500 000 coins just because some local judge said so. That's the whole point of bitcoin: It can't be confiscated. 500k BTC is enough to buy many lifetimes of freedom somewhere on the planet, even if you are wanted dead or alive in a first world country.

Seems it was proven he doesn&#x27;t own those bitcoins, so he&#x27;s meant to be handing over half of nothing, which is still nothing.<p>Edit: My statement is incorrect. The amount of bitcoins Craig Wright has access to was not determined in the case, but potentially could be none.

So, what are the possible outcomes now? He does not have the bitcoin, so what can he do?<p>- Flee to another country?<p>- Admit he&#x27;s not Satoshi?<p>- Claim the trust &quot;malfunctioned&quot;?<p>- Appeal?<p>Do these ultimately boil down to flee the country, or get jailed for contempt?

(IANAL) The headline is misleading. From the court order:<p>&quot;the Court deems the following facts to be established for purposes of this action: (1) Dr. Wright and David Kleiman entered into a 50&#x2F;50 partnership to develop Bitcoin intellectual property and to mine bitcoin; (2) any Bitcoin-related intellectual property developed by Dr. Wright prior to David Kleiman’s death was property of the partnership, (3) all bitcoin mined by Dr. Wright prior to David Kleiman’s death (“the partnership’s bitcoin”) was property of the partnership when mined; and (4) Plaintiffs presently retain an ownership interest in the partnership’s bitcoin, and any assets traceable to them&quot;.<p>Also from the order (and quoted in the article): &quot;The Court also is not required to decide, and does not decide,how much bitcoin, if any, Dr. Wright controls today. For purposes of this proceeding, the Court accepts Dr. Wright’s representation that he controlled (directly or indirectly) some bitcoin on December 31, 2013, and that he continues to control some today.&quot;<p>In other words, Kleiman&#x27;s estate gets half of some indeterminate amount of bitcoin that Wright mined prior to Kleiman&#x27;s death. Which as well may be zero, not $5bn.

Wizsec commentary: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.wizsec.jp&#x2F;2019&#x2F;08&#x2F;kleiman-v-wright-part-5.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.wizsec.jp&#x2F;2019&#x2F;08&#x2F;kleiman-v-wright-part-5.html</a><p>Full court ruling: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.courtlistener.com&#x2F;recap&#x2F;gov.uscourts.flsd.521536&#x2F;gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.277.0.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.courtlistener.com&#x2F;recap&#x2F;gov.uscourts.flsd.521536...</a>

This is absurd on so many levels. For example, it&#x27;s pretty obvious that Bitcoin cannot be valued based on its exchange price in such huge quantities - if any party decided to sell $5bn worth of BTC, the price would obviously go down dramatically at this point. What&#x27;s the logic behind this order?