Dear Michael del Castillo,
I hope this message finds you well. I read your article, "Satoshi Or Not, Here He Comes", today and felt compelled to share my thoughts.
I believe the piece contains significant inaccuracies and misleading statements which need to be addressed.
The identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, remains one of the industry's most enduring mysteries. But the mainstream media's bizarre insistence on entertaining Craig Wright’s unfounded claims to be Nakamoto, however, never ceases to amaze me.
I am writing this letter to explain the consequences of this inexplicable embrace and its impact on the legitimacy and evolution of the Bitcoin industry.
The Unfounded Claims of Craig Wright
As you know, since Wright first publicly claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto in 2016, he has consistently failed to provide conclusive evidence to support his claim. The most straightforward way to prove his identity would be to move some bitcoin from Nakamoto's known addresses, something only Satoshi could do. Despite numerous requests from the community, Wright has not done this.
Instead, his assertions are often based on complex technical explanations which, while potentially convincing to a layperson, do not hold up under expert scrutiny. I believe any reporter covering this industry should be aware of this and hold Wright - or anyone else claiming they are indeed Satoshi - to that same level of scrutiny.
But I get it.
The allure of a sensational story often proves irresistible to the media. The narrative of a misunderstood genius claiming to be the elusive creator of Bitcoin certainly fits that bill.
But the media's role is not merely to entertain. It is to inform, scrutinize, and hold people accountable.
In the case of Craig Wright, why has this responsibility been neglected?
The Consequences of Media Misrepresentation
The entire reason I feel compelled to write this letter to you, Mr. del Castillo, is due to the mainstream media's apparent uncritical acceptance and propagation of Wright's claims, which I believe have several damaging consequences.
Firstly, it muddies the understanding of Bitcoin technology at a core level.
For the general public, who look to the media for accurate information, the confusion created by these baseless claims can lead to skepticism and mistrust of the entire industry.
For example, the mention of Wright's control or pending status of nearly 4,000 patents is something requiring further scrutiny.
Yes, the sheer number of patents may seem impressive, but it is misleading to equate the quantity of patents with the quality or validity of those patents.
Many of Wright's patents are broad and vague - would they hold up in court if challenged?
Your suggestion that Wright's legal tactics could set precedents for software issued under permissive copyright rules known as open source is a misrepresentation of how open source works.
Open-source software is designed to be freely used, modified, and distributed. Wright's attempts to enforce patents on open-source software are seen by many in the industry as an abuse of the patent system and contrary to the open-source spirit of open source.
Wright’s legal battles against the Bitcoin developer community are nothing but harmful to the ethos of the community that he claims to have spurred.
The suggestion that Wright could actually force computer programmers around the world to stop using open-source software or pay up is something I cannot believe made it past your editorial desk
If you know Bitcoin, you know it is unlikely that one individual, even with a large patent portfolio, could apply such influence.
You mention that Wright's intellectual property work continued despite controversies and legal battles. But you fail to mention that many of these works are seen as attempts to monopolize concepts and technologies fundamental to the open and collaborative nature of the Bitcoin industry.
The Need for Responsible Reporting
In conclusion, while your article provides a detailed profile of Craig Wright, I believe it fails to critically examine his claims and presents a skewed perspective of his influence on the industry we Bitcoiners hold dear (and fight to defend every single day).
But what irks me the most is the mainstream media's insistence on entertaining the claim that Craig Wright could remotely be Satoshi Nakamoto.
It not only perpetuates misinformation (which your industry SAYS it fights to defend every single day) but also undermines the legitimacy and progress of the Bitcoin industry.
As the industry continues to evolve and mature, it is crucial that the media exercises its responsibility to inform and scrutinize with care and accuracy.
I hope you will consider these points in your future reporting.
Best regards,
Fernando Nikolic
This work is solely the opinion of the author and does not reflect the views or beliefs of any other individual, group, or organization. It is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. Any and all intellectual property rights related to this work are owned by the author. By reading, viewing, or otherwise interacting with this work, you acknowledge and agree to this disclaimer.
