Bitcoin Expert Ruadhan O On Craig Wright Going To

Hi, my name is San Tito. This is CryptoKid Podcast. I'm going to be talking to you guys about blockchain technology and cryptocurrency. Welcome to CryptoKid Podcast. Today I have a special guest, Ruan. And he was featured on Forbes, I believe. And we're going to be talking about, right? And the poor case that he's be going through with Bitcoin and a bunch of other stuff. Super excited

to have him on. So why don't you give us a little quick introduction and how you got into the Bitcoin space? Thanks for having me. So yeah, I was paying attention to Bitcoin from the very beginning. I did cryptography when when I was in university and basically I've been interested in cryptography and in the whole idea of cryptographic money even before Bitcoin came along. So when

the white paper appeared and when when the Bitcoin community formed, I was watching from the very beginning and I was interested from the beginning and from paying attention all along. And I was there when Satoshi was posting and then he disappeared and now we have all of this Craig Wright stuff that's happening at the moment. So yeah, I've been paying attention on it. It's very interesting

to me. And I've been investing in Bitcoin too. So I've got skin in the game. It kind of matters to me what happens. Amazing, amazing. And so I have a few questions about right and the core cases that he's going through. What is right seeking? In this case that he's going through with Bitcoin. Right. So what he claims is that somebody hacked into his computer and

deleted a file that contained a private key to one of his Bitcoin addresses. And he claims that the file was encrypted. So the hacker didn't wasn't able to steal the Bitcoins, but they were able to take the encrypted file and deleted from his computer. So he no longer has access to the Bitcoins that are after that address. And it's very interesting. So it's a 2.5 or

more than $2 billion, I think, of worth the Bitcoins that are there. And he's filing this case, claiming that the core developers of Bitcoin have a duty to give him back access to the Bitcoins that he lost. And what they're saying is that it's impossible that you can't do that. It breaks the rules of Bitcoin. And he's saying that no, the development of Bitcoin. The developers

have the power to add extra code to the Bitcoin software and they can implement a rule that transfers those Bitcoins back to him. And that would be a very serious change to the way that Bitcoin works. But he's claiming that they do have the power to do it. And he's claiming that they have a duty to do it. And the case was dismissed last year. But

he appealed and the appeals court judges have rules that the case can go ahead. So it's going to go ahead next year. And if it goes ahead and if he wins, then it'll be very serious consequences for Bitcoin. I'm glad you brought that up because I'm going through like a similar situation with with Binance before they turned in the before they open the Binance US. I

had like a ton of coins with Tron and literally the hundreds of thousands of coins. And I can I can access it. And it kind of pissed me off. I was just like, why, why can't I have it? And they're like, well, you have to transfer to your US account. And then the US some of the US accounts don't have have the Tron on there. And

I was like, I can't even transfer this. I was like, but and then they locked me out of my account. So yeah. So he will change a lot of things. And hopefully people will be able to have access to all the crypto currencies they lost. And Binance was just one of them. There was also another exchange. I forgot the name it bit tricks. Bit to I

tracks. Yeah. So they shut my down. They shut my account down on that. And I was like, why didn't he be able to access any of my cryptos? But what effect would would it have on Bitcoin if he wins in this case? So, well, if if he wins and he and the court orders the Bitcoin developers to add this rule, to basically change the code so

that it transfers the coins from that address that he can't access already claims he can't access to an address that he can access. That would be it would be a transaction that happened without the owner of the coins actually signing using the private key to transfer the coins. So it wouldn't be a legitimate transaction. Bitcoineno wasn't running for a coin that had no way to change,

but Empire had not here. So, what would happen is that Bitcoin would split into two coins. There would be the quarter-ordered version of Bitcoin, which would be one coin. And then there would be the rebels who would say we're not going to use this software. You can't force us to use software that we don't want to use. We like the original Bitcoin. And they would basically

fork. So there would be come two coins that would be kind of confiscatable Bitcoin. And then there would be kind of period. Bitcoin. Which couldn't be seized by a quarter-order. And what would probably happen would be that the people developing the pure Bitcoin would be anonymous so that they couldn't be served with quarter-orders like what RID is doing. And this would mean that you would have

basically, yeah, you would have these two coins. And it's not, well, yeah, it would be then a money fight of some kind to see which one would actually dominate in the market. Absolutely. Absolutely. Now, if Bitcoin splits into two coins, which one would it take a massive market cap? Or is it two? It just, these people still don't know yet. That's a good question. So what

are the, so there are a lot of people who have a lot of Bitcoin. And a lot of Bitcoin. So they are a very pro Bitcoin. They're very, they've adopted the philosophy of they're very committed to the philosophy of Bitcoin. And they believe that Bitcoin should be free from government control. And if the, if the coins split, if Bitcoin split into two coins, they would get

equal amounts of those coins. And what they would try to do would be they would probably sell all of their confiscatable Bitcoins and trade them for, for pure Bitcoins. And that would push down the price of confiscatable Bitcoin and push up the price of pure Bitcoin. And it would be like an attack of the whales who have the massive amounts of Bitcoin. So that's something that's

likely to happen. And that would tend to make the pure Bitcoin kind of win and take most of the market cap. But at the same time, businesses that are currently owed Bitcoins, and any debts that are denominated in Bitcoin, the court would rule that they have to accept the confiscatable version of Bitcoin. Because they would say, did we regard these Bitcoins as trade rights property? And

you have to basically use a version of Bitcoin that recognizes that this is as property. And so that means that all of the major businesses in the world, what's currently called Bitcoin would have to be this version. And this, the other coin, a pure Bitcoin, that would have to start off as a new coin. It wouldn't be listed on any exchanges. They would have to apply

to get listed on exchanges. And it would be a slow start kind of starting from the beginning. So yeah, there are two kind of points. Powerful forces. It's not clear of which one would win. And also, if Craig Wright has a whole lot of Bitcoins that he could use to oppose the other whales, then possibly the whale attack wouldn't wouldn't succeed in making pure Bitcoin the

more expensive coin. So yeah, there are things that we don't know, but those are kind of the two major forces that would be at work, I think. How come I'm glad you brought up government, how come the government hasn't shut down Bitcoin yet or like rebounded together? Yeah, they they can't it's kind of it's been designed so that it's very difficult to ban. You can't stop

people from running software on their home computers. And so if you wanted to ban Bitcoin, you would have to basically shut down the Internet. That's the only way to actually stop it because anybody, you know, running any device could run some whatever software they want on it doesn't always stop that. Okay. So do you think Bitcoin will remain king or eventually the government will find another

coin to replace it when they go to digital assets? I think that's that's well, so if if they're these central bank digital currencies, then they could have a larger market cap than Bitcoin just because there's more the value of all the dollars in existence is bigger than the value of all the Bitcoins in existence. So if all the dollars in existence were made digital, then there

would be a digital currency with a larger market cap than Bitcoin. But in terms of yeah, I don't think the governments are going to pick a different coin and try to promote it so that it wins in the marketplace. I don't think the government is going to interfere the marketplace that way. But yeah, digital card, a digital dollar or digital euro, they would have larger market

cap than Bitcoin. Is Ireland working on a digital digital asset? The Irish central bank, they're participating. So the Irish central bank is part of this euro system. So I think that's the way I'm going to do that. The European central bank, and this is owned by the central banks in all of the different euro zone countries. And what the European central bank is working on digital

currency. Are they're investigating the degree search projects and they'll probably start pilot schemes and so on. And I'm sure the Irish central bank is participating in that. But I don't think they are central bank would be leading the leading the way they would be kind of following what's happening in the EU. Cool, cool. Yeah, and I think the EU will create their own. For sure. Is

going back to Craig Wright. Is he likely to win this case? Do you know? Well, until yesterday, I thought he was going to lose. But I'm afraid that yeah, I saw I saw what he's done recently just a few days ago. He he launched or he announced that his own version of Bitcoin Bitcoin SV that he's implementing something called a blacklist manager. And this is. This

is a piece of like an additional piece of code in the software. And what it would do is it would have a list of keys of recognized authorities. And the court could order one of these authorities to sign a message saying that. That a certain address has been frozen. And this would mean that the miners would receive this message and they would check the signature they

would see that this is a valid signature. It must have come from a court or. And then they would stop processing transactions that send bitcoins from that address or Bitcoin SV from that address. So what he's done is he has given. He's he's going to give the courts the ability to freeze Bitcoin SV. So he's writing the code in so that the court can issue a

court order and freeze Bitcoin SV. And then what he's going to do is he's going to ask the court to freeze his Bitcoin SV at the address where he says. So he's going to say this is that risk of being it's vulnerable to theft by hackers because the hackers have the encrypted version of the private key. Maybe they could decrypt it later. So you know, that's

a point. And if they do that, then they would be able to take the coins. So what he's saying is these coins are vulnerable. And I need the court to freeze these Bitcoin SV at this address. And he's going to tell he's going to show the right way. So the court have to do that. He's written the software to allow him to do that. And he's

going to bring the court through the steps that they need to follow in order to freeze the bitcoins at the Bitcoin SV at that address. And I think what. What the court has already said is that on the appeals court. The judges, the three judges that they wrote. They wrote a summary and in their summary, they said that it's unacceptable for cryptocurrencies to remain beyond the

law. And so what he's doing is he's showing the court how to freeze Bitcoin SV. And he's going to make it very easy for them. And he's going to ask them to do it. So once they've done it, and they probably will do it because he's saying just freeze mine. He's not asking for anybody else's Bitcoin SV to be frozen. He's saying freeze mine because it's

at risk. So I think the court is likely to do it. The court wants to be able to do. They want to do it. The court is going to be motivated to cooperate with him. The court is probably going to agree to freeze his Bitcoin SV at that address. And that means that they're going to go through the process of actually issuing a court order and

freezing the Bitcoins on the chain. Once they've done that, then the court will understand how to do it. They'll understand what the procedure would be to freeze Bitcoins or to freeze any other cryptocurrency. So I think that's the way to do it. So I think that he's likely to achieve that. He's likely to get the court to understand how to freeze Bitcoins, not just Bitcoin SV,

but they would be able to freeze Bitcoins by instructing the developers of Bitcoin to add a Blacklist manager. And so basically I think he has a high likelihood of achieving that. But that wouldn't mean that he would get the $2 billion of that address. I don't think he would get the money. It's possible. That later on he might get the money. But I don't think that

that's what he's going for right now. And I don't think he really cares about the money. What he wants to do is to bring Bitcoin under the control of the law. So I think that he is very likely to succeed at getting the judges to understand how to freeze Bitcoins. And the judges have already said that it's unacceptable for cryptocurrency to be beyond the law. So

I think he has a very good chance of getting the judge to say that the Bitcoin court developers must add this Blacklist manager into Bitcoin. And if that happens, it wouldn't be it wouldn't be moving the funds from one address to another. It would just be freezing them at that address. So it wouldn't be breaking the old rules of the system. It wouldn't be if it

was actually transferred to another address that would cause a hard fork. It would cause the coins split into two. But if it's just freezing the coins that can be done with what's called a soft fork. You don't break the old rules. It's dead. You add a new rule. And this new rule would be don't accept transactions coming. It's taking sending Bitcoins from this address. So that

can be done without causing the fork or without causing the Bitcoin split into two. And the argument of the Bitcoin developers has been so far. We can't comply with this order because it would cause a hard fork. And that's dealt with the court once. So what right is doing is he's saying it doesn't need to be a hard fork. It can be done with a soft

fork. You don't need to have the coins splitting into two. You can just implement this freezing feature. So it wouldn't be taking the coins and moving them, just freezing them. And I think that it's it's very likely that the court will look very favorably on this. And also he it's so far. If he's telling the truth about the hackers coming in and taking his private key,

if that's true, then his argument that the developers have a duty to protect his phone. I think the court is going to agree with that. And yeah, it's a so I think he's not he's probably not going to win in the sense of getting the money. But he probably is going to succeed at giving courts the power to freeze Bitcoin's not not to confiscate a move

to a different address, not to take it, but just to freeze it at the address that it's that. And yeah, that would be it wouldn't be just Bitcoin that will be affected by this. It would be every cryptocurrency because if you're going to be a cryptocurrency, it's going to be a big currency. If the court realizes that if the court's realized that they can tell the

developers to add this blacklist feature and then blacklist a specific address based on a court order, then basically courts are courts are going to want to do that. They're they're not going to say, you know, we're Bitcoin pure some we don't like this. The courts are going to say we want all cryptocurrencies to be under the control of the law. So they would do the same

thing with the theory if somebody if somebody's a theory with stolen a court case could be brought and so the court could rule you have to add a blacklist manager to it. So you have to freeze the theory and you have to freeze these funds. So yeah, I think that he has a good chance of waiting but not getting the money. Dude, I'm glad you I'm

glad you you explained all that very well because we do we do need a lot more transparency with cryptocurrencies and and like stopping to like money laundering and doing doing shady things with money. So that's that's good that the government's getting involved in that that the developers are going to if they if he does win the developers will see that they're going to be able to

do that. He's claimed to be a lot of time, but yeah, it was most of the community didn't believe that he was syndicated and it's hard so the thing is that whether he is or not, it's the Tartisan L I mean. I mean, just evidence that he is and there's evidence that he isn't. So I mean, the strongest evidence that he isn't was that he seems

to be using deception. And I don't remember Satoshi ever using deception. So, but I've never seen Satoshi in a fight. So it's possible that, you know, he is Satoshi and he's just apparently changed personality because he's now in a fight. But that's one thing. But also there are other things like he published a list of a list of Bitcoin addresses that from very the very earliest

days of the blockchain. And he said that they belonged to him. But then the owners, the actual owners of those addresses published a signed messages from those addresses saying that Craig Wright is a liar under fraud. Hundreds of these people suddenly turned up and said, no, that's not your address. That's mine until I can prove it. And so, you know, so it looks like he is

kind of using some kind of deception. Also, he doesn't seem to have access to the private keys to the very earliest Bitcoin blocks, which is something you would expect Satoshi to have. And he doesn't seem to be able to move the Bitcoin. Like, there's a first, the first million Bitcoins, I think, that they remind by Satoshi. And he doesn't seem to have access to those. So

those are, you know, reasons to think that he's probably not Satoshi. It's kind of evidence that he's just pretending to be Satoshi. But on the other hand, there's kind of evidence that suggesting that he might be Satoshi. One of the things is that Satoshi, I mean, I think that he's actually a liar. The last message that Satoshi sent in public was he published a message that

said, I am not Dorian Nakamoto. There was, if you remember, there was a Japanese gentleman called Dorian Nakamoto. And there was a journalist who came and said, your Satoshi Nakamoto. And he was surprised. And didn't know what she was talking about. Yeah, there was a big media circus about it. But and then when that happened, the actual Satoshi posted a message saying, I am not Dorian

Nakamoto. Now, I think that's what I'm saying. If Satoshi is still alive and if he's paying attention, then that means that he's seeing what's going on now with Craig Wright. He's seeing that Craig Wright is claiming to be Satoshi. He's seeing that Craig Wright is basically has a good chance of changing the future of Bitcoin forever. And basically bringing all cryptocurrencies under the law. If Satoshi

is not Craig Wright, you would expect him to be able to post a message saying, I am not Craig Wright. And that hasn't happened. So the fact that that hasn't happened is some evidence that he is Satoshi. It doesn't prove it, but it's evidence in favor of that. And also, he has this single-minded obsession with Bitcoin that and he has this rage at the existing developers

that, you know, if he's not Satoshi, it's hard to explain why somebody would be so devoted to this and would be so enraged. He's behaving exactly the way that you would expect Satoshi to behave if the power of Bitcoin was taken away by another group and he was called a scammer and ostracized and so on. So, you know, there are basically this evidence for it against

it. We don't have proof either way. Everybody just has to look at the evidence and make their own decision. Absolutely. Absolutely. Now, my assumption is, I think, I think this is notoshi. I think he works for the government. I don't know what government, but like they probably found out who he was and they just like, all right, you work for us now and we're just going

to keep it a hush. He seems to be pro-law, but also, so I mean, it's one thing to say that everything should be broader to the controls of law. Everything should be lawful. But in his blacklist manager that he proposed and he outlined how it was going to work. The idea is that there needs to be a machine readable message that informs the network that it

was a court order and it has to be accompanied by a digital signature that proves that it's not going to be a legal signature. It's not going to be a legal signature that it was a court order that came from a legitimate authority. So he understands that the courts are not technically sophisticated enough to apply the digital signature themselves and to construct this message themselves. So

what he said is that the court could use a consortium of banks and law firms to have the expertise necessary to create this message that can be sent. So that means that the power to the power to apply these digital signatures that would freeze bitcoins would be given to law firms and banks that are going to be a legal signature. And those are basically the enemies,

well, not law firms, but banks specifically are kind of the enemies of the Bitcoin community. So saying, now I'm going to give banks the ability to freeze bitcoins, that doesn't seem, that seems completely contrary to the entire philosophy of most Bitcoiners. So yeah, it looks like he is basically working for the opposite side to the people who are currently the main bitcoinsers. Wow. So how can

people follow up on this are keep in touch with the news that's coming out. Yeah. So what I do is every now and then I just typed right into Google and just just look at the latest news stories and whatever there's a news story. It's a it's usually quite interesting. Usually he loses his cases. He's lost a lot of cases. I think he he recently claimed

that Bitcoin cash all of the forks of Bitcoin were violating his copyright because they had using variance. So this software, but the court rejected that. I mean, it's unrealistic to stop people from modifying your software. Also, the license that he issued the software under at this is the MIT license. It allows people to take the software, modify it and run their own version of it. So

yeah, he tends to he tends to lose a lot of his cases. But I think this one that he has right now is the big one. And I think he's prepared very carefully this the story about somebody hacking into his computer. And taking an encrypted version of this private key, that is just so absolutely perfect for bringing this case. It's very hard to imagine a case

that he could bring that would allow him to explain to the judge that, you know, this is how to seize Bitcoin. This is the code that needs to be added. And this is how you do it and to actually step them through the process and get them to do it once. It's very hard to come up with a scenario in which he could get the judges

to do that. But so this case that he's bringing it looks like it's been very, very carefully tailored. And I think it's very important to bring this to bring this like the set of circumstances that he's alleging are very unlikely to have occurred to him and just to him when he is the person who wants to bring exactly this case. So, but that doesn't mean that

he's lying about being hacked. If it was me and I wanted to bring to bring this case, what I would do is I would deliberately open a vulnerability in my own computer. And then I would go to a hacker forum and I would say, you know, the these DEF CON conference. The hackers go to I would I would say I'll pay for the next DEF CON

conference all the expenses for everybody. If somebody hacks into my computer and deletes this file. Then then he then they somebody would do it and then he could go to the court and say yes, somebody hacked into my computer and deleted that file. And he wouldn't be lying. There you go. There you go. Man, we're running short on time. It's super. I'm having a super good

time talking to you and chatting you and you're throwing some good nuggets. Before we come to a close, is there anything you felt like we didn't go over that you want to share real quickly? I think, I think actually that covers everything. I think you can manage to cover it up pretty well. Well, deal, man. And one last question. What's next for you? Oh, so yeah,

I'm working on my own project at seasonal tokens. So these are mindable tokens. They're on Ethereum and it's if anybody wants to know about it, they can go to our website, seasonal tokens.org. There are four coins and four tokens. They're mindable using proof of work. And they're similar to Bitcoin, but they have a seasonality. So right now summer tokens are the cheapest and the most plenty

full. But on the sixth of March, there's going to be a halving. The rate of summer will get cut in half. And then summer will be produced at the slowest rate. And it will gradually become the most expensive and autumn will be the cheapest. So we have a year of abundance summer tokens right now. Then there'll be a year of a bunch of autumn and then

to buy as many tokens at low prices as people can today, which is why we can expect it to be a good investment. Wow. You heard it people. Make sure you get your season tokens. And thanks again, dude. It's a pleasure and honor. And I wish you the best when you're endeavors. I hope to see you in the future and catch up and see where you're

at. Absolutely. Thank you so much. All right, man. Take it easy. Oh, and all those links will be in the description down below. So make sure you check them out. There's this. Did you know that podcasts are a great way to grow your personal and business brand voice. Here's a secret. We all want to feel connected. To brands we buy from what a better way to

humanize a brand than through sharing your story on a podcast. Kidcaster is a podcast booking agency that specializes in developing real human connection through podcasts appearances. If you are an expert in your field, have a unique story to share. Or in an area where you can see the real world. Interesting point of view is time to explore the world of podcasting with Kitcaster. You can expect

a completely customized service from our staff of communication experts. Kidcaster is your secret weapon and podcasting for business. Your audience is waiting to hear from you. Go to Kitcaster.com slash crypto kid to apply your special offer for friends of this podcast. The link will also be in the description down below. And happy podcasting.