The mystery of who truly stands behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto—the enigmatic creator of Bitcoin—continues to captivate the world. Craig Wright, an Australian computer scientist who has long claimed to be Nakamoto, has once again failed to convince a court of his identity. In a landmark ruling, the UK High Court has determined that the Bitcoin blockchain file format is not protected by copyright, clearing 27 major cryptocurrency exchanges of infringement allegations.
This latest legal setback reinforces growing skepticism within the crypto community about Wright’s claims. Despite years of asserting he is the real Satoshi, Wright has consistently failed to provide cryptographic proof—such as signing a message with the private key from early Bitcoin blocks. Repeated perjury findings and contradictory evidence have further eroded his credibility.
👉 Discover how blockchain innovation continues to evolve beyond legal disputes.
Court Rules Bitcoin File Format Isn't Copyrightable
On February 7, the UK High Court dismissed Wright’s claim that derivative blockchains like Bitcoin (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) infringe on his intellectual property. Wright argued that as the original author of the 2008 Bitcoin whitepaper, he should have control over any blockchain stemming from a hard fork of the original protocol.
However, Justice Miles Jacob ruled that the technical structure of Bitcoin—specifically, the sequence of metadata headers and transaction lists forming a block—does not qualify as a "literary work" under copyright law. A critical legal requirement known as "fixation" was not met: there is no verifiable record showing when or how Wright first documented the Bitcoin file format in a fixed, tangible form.
“While I acknowledge that copyright law will continue to face challenges from new digital technologies, I find no legal precedent supporting protection for ideas or systems that have not been expressed or fixed in a concrete medium.”
This means that even if Wright authored the whitepaper, the underlying code architecture of Bitcoin cannot be owned or restricted through copyright. The decision effectively confirms that Bitcoin’s core technology operates in the public domain, free for innovation and adaptation.
Failed Claims Against 27 Crypto Exchanges
Wright had filed claims against multiple entities, including major platforms like Coinbase and other infrastructure providers, alleging they violated his intellectual property rights by supporting alternative blockchains such as Bitcoin SV (BSV)—a chain Wright insists is the only true continuation of Nakamoto’s vision since its 2018 hard fork from Bitcoin Cash.
But the court found insufficient evidence linking Wright to the creation or documentation of the disputed formats. Despite having ample opportunity, neither Wright nor his affiliated investment firms produced any definitive work establishing authorship or original expression of the Bitcoin file structure.
The ruling sends a strong signal: claiming ownership over foundational blockchain protocols without verifiable proof will not hold up in court. It also protects the open-source nature of cryptocurrency development, ensuring that decentralized innovation remains unencumbered by restrictive IP claims.
What’s Next? A Broader Legal Battle Looms
While this case focused on copyright, another high-stakes lawsuit is set to move forward in London. In early February, a judge ruled that Wright’s company, Tulip Trading, can pursue a civil case against 16 key Bitcoin developers—including Roger Ver, Matt Corallo, and Greg Maxwell.
Wright alleges these developers owe him a fiduciary duty to alter the Bitcoin protocol so he can recover access to wallets allegedly containing 111,000 BTC—worth around $4 billion at current prices. One wallet in question, known as 1Feex, holds nearly 80,000 coins tied to the infamous Mt. Gox hack.
Critics argue this case threatens the fundamental principle of immutability in blockchain systems. Forcing developers to rewrite consensus rules for individual gain could undermine trust in decentralized networks worldwide.
👉 Explore secure ways to manage digital assets on trusted platforms.
Shifting Alliances: Early Supporters Turn Away
Once considered a credible figure by some in the crypto space, Wright has seen support dwindle. Notably, Gavin Andresen, one of Bitcoin’s earliest contributors and a former lead developer, recently retracted his past endorsement.
In an updated post from 2016, Andresen stated:
“Seven years after I wrote this article, much has happened. I now realize that trusting Craig Wright was a mistake. I regret getting involved in the game of guessing who is—or isn’t—Satoshi. I refuse to play that game anymore.”
This reversal underscores a broader sentiment: the crypto community values transparency, proof, and technical merit over self-proclaimed titles.
FAQ: Understanding the Implications
Q: Can anyone copyright blockchain technology?
A: Generally, no. While specific software implementations or user interfaces can be copyrighted, foundational protocols like Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism are considered functional systems—not creative works—and thus fall outside copyright protection.
Q: Does this ruling prove Craig Wright isn’t Satoshi Nakamoto?
A: The court did not definitively rule on Wright’s identity. However, it emphasized that he failed to provide any credible evidence linking him to the creation of Bitcoin’s file format—a key expectation for someone claiming to be its inventor.
Q: What happens to Bitcoin SV after this decision?
A: BSV can still operate, but without exclusive claims to being the “true” Bitcoin based on copyright. Its future depends on market adoption and technical performance, not legal assertions.
Q: How does this affect open-source crypto development?
A: Positively. The ruling supports the idea that core blockchain innovations should remain open and accessible, encouraging continued development across BTC, BCH, and other forks without fear of litigation over basic protocol design.
Q: Could Wright appeal again?
A: Yes. Although this decision is significant, legal proceedings are ongoing, particularly regarding the Tulip Trading case involving developer liability.
Why This Matters for the Crypto Ecosystem
This judgment reinforces two pillars of cryptocurrency: decentralization and open access. By rejecting attempts to monopolize Bitcoin’s architecture through copyright, courts are helping preserve the technology’s integrity and democratized nature.
It also highlights the importance of on-chain proof over verbal assertions. In a world built on verifiable data, claiming to be Satoshi without cryptographic validation carries little weight.
👉 Stay ahead in crypto with tools that prioritize security and transparency.
Final Thoughts
The dream of creating a permissionless financial system lives on—not because of any single individual, but because of collective belief in code, consensus, and freedom from centralized control. Whether or not Craig Wright ever convinces another court of his identity, the technology he seeks to claim has already escaped containment.
Bitcoin belongs not to one person, but to everyone who uses it.
Core Keywords: Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, blockchain, cryptocurrency, copyright, Craig Wright, Bitcoin SV, open-source