Don't read this if you want to stay poor

well, if he's Nakamoto then he'll need to prove it beyond just saying he is. We all know there is first ever created bitcoin account with funds in it. Its logical to assume this first account belongs to Nakamoto. If he is Nakamoto, he should be able to withdraw funds from that account. I bet Craigh won't be able to do that, because he's not Nakamoto.

>The strength of law comes in its flexibility—the ability of judges and juries to weigh evidence and find a balance based on proof. Those seeking to subvert justice will tell you that proof can be obtained through mere digital data, that evidence through a simple key is sufficient.
- Dr. Craig S Wright, 13-03-2019

I would say the same shit if I would try to claim what is not mine

dilate bitchboi

>i will provide empirical evidence to prove i am satoshi nakamoto - craig wright, 2016.

>ayyyy lmao idk just believe me or i sue you lol - craig wright, 2019.

>I own the origin account with 800k bitcoins in it but don't expect that I can prove it with a key Hurrr durr

One day maybe you'll understand.
>Many will have you believe that signing a message with the digital key is itself proof and not mere evidence in the construction of a case. It is a fallacy I need to rebuke. It is an idea that is miasmic through its virulent and noxious constitution. Being of mephitic nature reminiscent of toads wallowing in the pond they defecate in with its septic rankness, it pollutes the minds it touches.
>The Moor, Othello gave proof through deeds. Yet such is what some would seek to obfuscate. They seek to obscure the very meaning of proof for it eats at the heart of law.

Its really simple. Either he has the key, or he doesn't. Considering the whining, I would assume he doesn't.

>Its really simple
Talking about your brain?

Poo in loo
Do it.