Fake Satoshi Nakamoto Trying To Patent All Sorts Of Bitcoin Related Ideas

from the ordinary-skill dept

Earlier this week I got knocked out by some pretty serious food poisoning. The few times I would try to do some work or pop in on Twitter, all I was seeing was people mocking the London Review of Books' somewhat insane 35,000-word-long profile of Craig Wright, the guy who earlier this year claimed to be the real Satoshi Nakamoto. While he even convinced Gavin Andresen (the guy who really turned Nakamoto's original work into actual Bitcoin), many others quickly pointed out that Wright's "proof" appeared to be a giant scam. Why write a 35,000-word profile on a guy who isn't Satoshi Nakamoto? I don't know, but thankfully the food poisoning and the few snarky tweets I saw saved me from digging into the entire thing and wasting an afternoon. Fusion posted a much shorter summary of the piece, in case you're wondering.

Buried in all of this was a plot by Wright and a Canadian company named nTrust, to basically patent all the Bitcoin/blockchain stuff they could think of, and then after Wright was revealed to be Nakamoto, sell it off for ONE BILLLLLLLLLLION DOLLARS.
The plan was always clear to the men behind nCrypt. They would bring Wright to London and set up a research and development centre for him, with around thirty staff working under him. They would complete the work on his inventions and patent applications – he appeared to have hundreds of them – and the whole lot would be sold as the work of Satoshi Nakamoto, who would be unmasked as part of the project. Once packaged, Matthews and MacGregor planned to sell the intellectual property for upwards of a billion dollars. MacGregor later told me he was speaking to Google and Uber, as well as to a number of Swiss banks. ‘The plan was to package it all up and sell it,’ Matthews told me. ‘The plan was never to operate it.’
Elsewhere in the report, Wright talks about having "hundreds of patents and papers in progress -- research from the beginning." And later, a colleague of Wright's mentions a plan to push for "upwards of four hundred patents." It seems noteworthy, of course, that at least in the US you're supposed to file for a patent within a year of any public use or description of the invention. If he's trying to patent stuff "from the beginning," he might be a bit late.

Either way, while the big reveal hasn't worked the way they intended (because it appears to be bullshit), Wright is still moving forward on the patent front. He's been applying for a ton of patents related to blockchain technologies:
Since February, Wright has filed more than 50 patent applications in Britain through Antigua-registered EITC Holdings Ltd, which a source close to the company confirmed was connected to Wright, government records show.

Interviews with sources close to EITC Holdings Ltd, which has two of Wright's associates as directors, confirmed it was still working on filing patent applications and Britain's Intellectual Property Office has published another 11 patent applications filed by the company in the past week.
Because nothing says revolutionizing money and technology like creating a giant patent troll to block such innovations.
"It looks like he is trying to patent the fundamental building blocks of any blockchain, cryptocurrency, or distributed ledger system," said Antony Lewis, a consultant on bitcoin issues to whom Reuters showed the patent titles and some of the texts.
In seeing some of the talk about the LRB article, some people keep pointing to the fact that Wright is trying to patent all this stuff as some sort of evidence that he really knows a lot about Bitcoin and the blockchain. People seem to have this magical spell come over them in that they think patents actually connote some sort of special status on people -- perhaps because they don't spend much time wading through tons and tons of ridiculous patents and wacky inventors insisting the patents matter much more than they really do.

Either way, if Wright gets his patents, whether or not he's truly Nakamoto, he could create an awful lot of problems for the advancement of Bitcoin and the blockchain. Because that's what patents are really for: blocking innovation, rather than encouraging it.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 22 Jun 2016 @ 10:49am

    None of this should surprise anyone. Bitcoin has always been filled with fraud and scamming almost from day 1. At what point do we finally just call it a failed experiment and move on?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Null, 22 Jun 2016 @ 1:45pm

      Re:

      Ex-developer Mike Hearn did call is a failed experiment, yet it keeps going. Its almost as if it has utility or something.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PRMan (profile), 22 Jun 2016 @ 4:03pm

        Re: Re:

        Mike Hearn seemed pretty scammy himself. He got mad when people wouldn't vote for his changes which seemed to help himself more than the community.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Mason Wheeler (profile), 23 Jun 2016 @ 8:02am

        Re: Re:

        Oh, obviously. Afterall, it's not like it's a well-known aspect of human psychology that people tend to be unwilling to admit they were scammed even in the face of all the evidence or anything...

        And on a more objective note, wasn't the big selling point of Bitcoin that it's a decentralized system that can't be controlled by any malicious authority? When we consider that Bitcoin mining is so overwhelmingly dominated by a relatively small Chinese cartel that the actual Bitcoin developers are unable to fix widely-acknowledged bugs in the system because the Chinese don't want them fixed, is that not an objective sign of failure?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 22 Jun 2016 @ 1:53pm

      Re:

      By the standards that bitcoin is 'failing' under, every other currency on the planet has already failed, and to a greater extent.

      Every currency has counterfeiting attempts, confidence schemes and theft. If those things invalidated a currency, we wouldn't have any.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2016 @ 10:55am

    Makes no sense

    "Fake Satoshi Nakamoto"

    "The public bitcoin transaction log shows that Nakamoto's known addresses contain roughly one million bitcoins.[8] As of 19 June 2016, this is the equivalent of US$758 million."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto

    If the real Nakamoto has so much wealth what would he want with the Bitcoin patents?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    mattshow (profile), 22 Jun 2016 @ 11:39am

    It seems noteworthy, of course, that at least in the US you're supposed to file for a patent within a year of any public use or description of the invention. If he's trying to patent stuff "from the beginning," he might be a bit late.

    And in much of the rest of the world, there is no grace period at all. I'm not aware of any countries that offer more than a one year grace period (but I'm happy to be corrected there).

    That seems like kind of a huge problem for technology that has been extensively analyzed and discussed for several years now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Shadow Firebird, 22 Jun 2016 @ 12:24pm

    old plot

    Fully expecting the real inventor of bitcoin to be locked in a dungeon somewhere with an iron mask on his head.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2016 @ 2:43pm

    Bitcoin use a blockchain which could be used for keeping a record of transactions ,banking,
    government records.it has many possible uses outside a currency,
    When the web browser was invented ,
    No one thought it would be used for business video streaming meetings, live streaming games ,
    streaming music or video,s to phones or tvs.
    Someone thinks of a basic idea or process ,
    do this on a pc on the web,
    they get a patent on it .
    And they can control or block innovation in that sector .one of the reasons why the idea of software patents is
    a bad idea and bad for society and consumers .
    Any basic programmer could write patents in a few days
    on the idea of a blockchain being used for banking or
    selling stocks or being used to record various financial
    transactions .

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mason Wheeler (profile), 23 Jun 2016 @ 8:06am

      Re:

      When the web browser was invented ,
      No one thought it would be used for business video streaming meetings, live streaming games ,
      streaming music or video,s to phones or tvs.

      Maybe not, but when the webcam was invented almost immediately afterwards, plenty of people could see it coming. All we needed was for bandwidth to catch up...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rocko, 22 Jun 2016 @ 9:10pm

    Patents

    How do you know his the Patents he applied for are not fake too?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer
Anonymous number for texting and calling from Hushed. $25 lifetime membership, use code TECHDIRT25
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.