[Cryptography] Craig Wright
iang at iang.org
Thu Feb 3 09:22:38 EST 2022
Not wishing to get dragged into this silly discussion... but!!
On 02/02/2022 22:34, Matt Corallo wrote:
> On 2/2/22 11:49, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>> I'm not sure how well known this is:
> This is incredibly strange reporting.
> Normally, when one party sues another they include a litany of
> accusations, only expecting to win on one or another, and if they win
> on only one or another and are awarded *$100 million* in damages from
> a private party, that is reported as a massive loss for the defendant.
One would think, but nothing in the Kleimann case is simple, perhaps bc
of the remarkably big amounts of money that the plaintiff was asking for
- like half of the SN 1.1 million coins.
In practice, it is a huge loss to plaintiffs & big win to defendents.
In part this is because the one awarded damage is conversion, which is a
loose sort of claim, basically "you made a mistake, now rectify it" so
put the $100m back. Fine, from defendent's pov, he can do that, bc he's
got that sort of wealth.
In next part bc the company that has "won" the damages of $100m is also
itself subject to litigation in nearby courts as the company itself is
only 25-33% owned (varying claims) by the Kleiman estate (allegedly) and
the rest is owned by interests closer to Wright. So maybe only a part
of the $100m will make its way to the Kleiman estate, assuming these
claims are real.
> Here that exact outcome is being reported as a "win" for the
> defendant, seemingly in large part just because the defendant is
> claiming it as a win (despite the accusers also, seemingly rightfully,
> claiming it as a win).
And somewhere else there is a suggestion that the legal costs of the
Kleiman legal team are well north of $20mm and unlikely to be shrinking,
as they're fighting on and asking for a retrial... do the math.
Also, NB, it is entirely likely that the 'loser' whichever that is, will
appeal, so whatever was said in local court could change...
PS: For those who are obsessed with moving coins, I did actually write
something a few years back here:
PPS; I don't have a dog in this fight, and I don't care overmuch who
pays what. I'm just reading the case like everyone else; from the
beginning, I felt that Kleimann estate didn't have much of a case. Now,
the jury returned "don't have much of a case." I was a bit surprised,
with all that effort Kleimann should have turned up more, but nope, SFA.
More information about the cryptography