/arc-photo-coindesk/arc2-prod/public/LXF2COBSKBCNHNRE3WTK2BZ7GE.png)
MIAMI — Craig Wright – the Australian computer scientist best known for his widely disputed claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin – is now expected to testify in a Miami court on Monday.
- Wright was initially slated to testify Thursday, according to an earlier schedule drawn up for the jury by Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
- However, Wright’s defense team’s questioning of Ira Kleiman, the plaintiff in the case, went all day Thursday and is expected to spill over into late Friday morning.
- After Kleiman’s testimony wraps, the plaintiffs are expected to introduce pre-taped video testimony from two witnesses, including Wright’s ex-wife, Lynn Wright.
- Kleiman is suing Wright for what he alleges to be his brother Dave’s share of proceeds derived from business arrangements between the two men, including intellectual property and bitcoin that Ira says they mined together.
- Ira based these claims on information he received from Wright and others following Dave’s death in April 2013, as well as emails and other documents.
- However, it is unclear whether Wright has access to any of the alleged 1.1 million bitcoin (which would be worth over $67 billion).
- Much of it is in wallets associated with Nakamoto and other sources, but Wright has never been willing or able to demonstrate he controls the wallets of Bitcoin’s creator.
- Andres Rivero, lead counsel for Wright’s defense, focused his cross-examination of Ira on his strained relationship with his brother Dave before the latter’s death, in an attempt to depict Ira as purely motivated by financial gain.
- The defense also sought to downplay Dave’s purported role in the conception of Bitcoin by establishing a timeline of his poor physical health in 2008, the year the Bitcoin white paper was published.
- Under cross-examination by Rivero, Kleiman said he erased and overwrote data on all but one of the 14 devices that were recovered among David’s belongings, and threw another away. The defense argues that if Dave had any bitcoin or other information and Ira couldn’t find it, that’s his fault.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW