Skip to content

Dr. Wright’s settlement offer to COPA and all opposition parties

[Recommend my two-volume book for more reading]:

BIT & COIN:  Merging Digitality and Physicality

On January 24, 2024, Dr. Wright sent to his opponents in the COPA litigation (Claim No. IL-2021-000019), the passing-off claims (Claim No. IL-2022-000035  & Claim No. IL-2022-000036) and database-rights claims, (Claim No. IL-2022-000069) a non-negotiable offer to settle each of these cases.

See the offer in its entirety here.

Here is a quick summary and analysis of the offer.

Key points


All lawsuits and claims are to be dropped; the Opposition implicitly recognizes that Dr. Wright is Satoshi but explicitly recognizes that BSV represents the original Bitcoin intended by Satoshi.


BTC, BCH and ABC enjoy perpetual free licenses to Bitcoin database rights and copyrights and can continue to use the name Bitcoin (under a broader umbrella of Bitcoins), having been recognized to have separate purposes and uses not contemplated by Satoshi Nakamoto.  


With this offer, the recognition of Dr. Wright as Satoshi will be only implicit. There will be no formal, explicit acceptance or announcement that Dr. Wright is Satoshi, and, with a settlement, there will be no official court judgment on the identity issue.

Per the settlement, the Opposition will not conduct any media campaigns against Dr. Wright. However, such a pledge is only effective for the specific parties involved in the Opposition, and even that limited scope is hard to enforce. The anti-Wright campaigns on social media are expected to continue, and the wide rejection of Dr. Wright’s Satoshi identity in the media, especially social media, is likely to continue.

However, the settlement will have an explicit recognition of BSV as the original Bitcoin protocol:

Bitcoins (and derivative systems) referred to as BSV, BTC, BCH and ABC (together “Bitcoins”), Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision for Bitcoin was “small casual transactions”, …we recognise that BTC, BCH and ABC now have separate purposes and uses not contemplated by Satoshi Nakamoto.”  


Likelihood of acceptance by Opposition before trial:  close to zero.  

Dr. Wright partially sacrifices himself for BSV

If accepted, this offer will be helpful for BSV development. Being recognized as Satoshi’s original Bitcoin (BSV) is no small matter. In this sense, Dr. Wright offers to partially sacrifice his reputation for the sake of the genuine Bitcoin.  

However, BSV is the original Bitcoin protocol, and it can be factually proven. I am willing to debate anyone in the world about this particular matter. Dr. Wright’s sacrifice for advancing this rightful status and its wider recognition is appreciated. But one should realize that it is not some kind of otherwise undeserved artificial right that got added only as a result of a compromising negotiation. Rather, it is a natural right that has been wrongfully deprived.

The offer is good for BTC

At the same time, for BTC, having been recognized to have separate purposes and uses not contemplated by Satoshi Nakamoto is not a loss but a gain. The emphasis here is the phrase “separate purposes and uses” because it means legitimacy. It means even though BTC’s purpose is different from what was contemplated by Satoshi originally, it now has its own legitimate, separate purposes and uses.

On the other hand, even though it is recognized as legitimate, it is separate from what Satoshi contemplated. The separation is factually true. Any insistence that BTC is truthful to Satoshi’s Bitcoin is simply hypocrisy.

Being different from Satoshi’s Bitcoin doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong. Violating Satoshi’s property rights for the database and copyright was. They could have honestly done it without a violation by choosing what Litecoin did, namely taking advantage of Satoshi’s MIT license of Bitcoin but staying clearly within the boundaries of the license (which means starting a new database under a new name, with the deviation from the original Bitcoin protocol manifested). Instead, they took control of Bitcoin as if it were their own property, forgetting that they were only stewards entrusted with fiduciary duties by Satoshi.

With this offer, however, that will be all forgiven.

BTC should have acknowledged the separation when they pushed for SegWit. But they couldn’t then because BTC’s very existential foundation is the coin price, not utility, and acknowledging that BTC was a fork from the original Bitcoin in 2017 would have killed its price, thus its very existence.

Seven years later, however, BTC can stand on its own feet. Given the market’s acceptance and adoration of “digital gold”, it may finally muster enough courage to proclaim, “We thank Satoshi, but we disagree with him. We want our own coin that better represents our own values and beliefs.”

BTC betrayed Satoshi in 2017 but may come to make it public now. Satoshi just said, “If you accept this offer, I forgive you for everything you did.”

Some believe that the offer does not give the name Bitcoin away. But it does. Explicitly. For example, the offer has the following language: Bitcoins (and derivative systems) referred to as BSV, BTC, BCH and ABC (together “Bitcoins”).

Therefore, with this offer, BTC may continue under the name Bitcoin, albeit only one of the multiple forms of “Bitcoins” – as described in the offer. It can keep its current path and enjoy the wide coin market recognition without utility (until the illusion pops, but no one can tell when). 

Satoshi wanted to create one of the largest technological advancements in human history, but BTC succeeded in pulling off one of the most creative examples of social engineering. Thrives or perishes, BTC may do so now with its own devices, not with Satoshi. Meanwhile, Satoshi can continue to pursue his vision with Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV). It’s not the end. It’s a new beginning, for both.

The Opposition will reject the offer

It is unlikely that the Opposition will accept the offer before trial. The position of the parties in the Opposition is that Dr. Wright is not Satoshi. They will look at the offer from this position and judge everything based on it. Even though the offer does not require an explicit acknowledgment that Dr. Wright is Satoshi, it implicitly does that. This is the line that the Opposition is unlikely to be willing to cross before the trial.

Put simply, from the Opposition’s point of view, because Dr. Wright is not Satoshi, he can’t offer anything that only Satoshi can offer.

The risk of rejecting the offer is that if Dr. Wright is found to be Satoshi in the trial, they will be in a much worse position than what is found in this offer.

It’s a balance of risk and benefit. All signs indicate that the Opposition, especially COPA, is still confident enough to take the risk. Likely, COPA may even read this offer as a sign of Dr. Wright’s weakness, thus further encouraging its position.

The flip side of the coin is that they could be wrong. Dr. Wright could be doing this precisely because he is confident in proving his Satoshi identity, and, knowing that the offer will be rejected, he could be only using it to expose the other side’s motives strategically and to make the penalty most acutely felt should he win the case.

Risk or not, strategy or not, no one knows the result before the trial.

Besides, there are other reasons that propel the Opposition to go all the way to the trial without a pretrial settlement.

The interests of the Opposition parties are not fully aligned

As identified in the offer, the parties in the Opposition are diverse. In addition to COPA, there are a number of BTC core developers and crypto exchanges. They are parties in different lawsuits. However, the issue of Satoshi’s identity is consolidated and tried in COPA v. Wright first. See the key in COPA v. Wright.

The consolidation makes practical sense. However, the interests of the Opposition parties are not fully aligned. Facing this offer, parties may have quite different realities of benefits and risks.


BTC Core developers should like the offer because it is good for their existing and continuing business. But I doubt anyone will take it. Under the current BTC culture, any Core developer who does that will likely be instantly banished from the kingdom of laser eyes. Besides, whatever COPA decides will create a lot of pressure for the developers to go along with it.

In addition, the offer has the following term: “[All parties make]best endeavours to comply with all international and national laws and regulations in which I/ we operate, including any laws relating to money laundering, and anti-terrorist financing, or similar initiatives where exploiting and developing Bitcoins and its technology, and where required and possible, actively seek to create code to ensure compliance“. 

Making a pledge like that would cut deep into BTC’s soul. From the small blocks and SegWit to Lightning Network, BTC’s main focus is to become “law-resistant” money. It is its raison d’être. It is one of BTC’s main selling points. So how can they make that pledge required in the offer? They can’t openly disagree with the pledge, but deep in their heart, they know they can’t go there without contradicting their ideological root and propagandistic base.

The exchanges

The risks that crypto exchanges run are mostly regulatory. If Dr. Wright wins the case, they will have a difficult time explaining why they have promoted BTC as the genuine Bitcoin and even went as far as delisting BSV. Accepting this offer would avoid this risk.

But the crypto exchanges all hate BSV. As they focus on their current business, they see little upside in accepting this offer. In their eyes, BSV has minimal trading volume and brings negligible benefit to their core business. In addition, if they understand the potential capability of BSV, they may also realize that, in the long term, BSV may make centralized exchanges obsolete. The present form of crypto exchanges exists because the blockchains that have been shown are not scalable. A blockchain that has unbounded scalability with extremely low transaction costs simply doesn’t fit with the current cryptoverse. It will ruin the foundation of the entire cryptoverse in which exchanges are kings. See The Cancerous Crypto.


COPA’s position is different from others. To COPA, the risk/benefit picture is quite simple: It gains nothing from the offer, but accepting the offer would defeat COPA’s litigation purpose and contradict the very reason for its existence.

COPA’s purpose is beyond fighting for freedom of operation in view of the Bitcoin database and the whitepaper (which is not their core business, and the founders of COPA take that for granted anyway). Its real purpose is to thoroughly discredit Dr. Wright, kill BSV, and render nChain’s IP less effective. nChain’s massive patent portfolio in the areas of blockchain and cryptocurrencies poses a threat to the member companies of COPA.

On the surface, the lawsuit is about the Satoshi identity and whitepaper copyright, but the result of the case reaches BSV blockchain and nChain’s patents. COPA’s name stands for “Cryptocurrency Open Patent Alliance”. COPA filed COPA v. Wright seven months after it was formed, just about enough time to prepare for the lawsuit. Dr. Wright’s patents (which are assigned to nChain) seem to be COPA’s primary concern.

Even though a COPA win would not destroy nChain patents outright, disabling the main underlying business can nevertheless make the associated IP portfolio much less potent. It can be an effective strategy, and so far has proven to be effective even without a trial. Since its announcement nearly three years ago, the case has had a clear effect of suppressing the development of the BSV ecosystem, and that is before the case has reached a verdict.

Accepting this offer would defeat COPA’s purpose. Under only one condition would COPA accept this offer: after seeing the evidence, they have concluded their chance to win is small, and they have no better choice. However, so far, there is no sign that COPA is losing confidence in its case.

On the other hand, Dr. Wright’s offer seems to focus on BTC rather than COPA. He hinted at making an offer of this kind to BTC more than a year ago as some kind of preplanned strategy. There is no evidence that this offer indicates Dr. Wright is losing confidence in the case either.

A trial is the only way to tell.


It raises a more basic question: exactly why is COPA suing Dr. Wright?

This question is related to the “legal standing” issue in the law.

Legal standing is a fundamental concept in the law. It refers to the requirement that a party seeking to bring a lawsuit must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand to justify their involvement in the case. This concept is rooted in the need to ensure that courts resolve actual disputes rather than hypothetical or abstract disagreements.

Generally, in a common law system like that of the UK and the US, to have legal standing, the plaintiff must have:

1) suffered some actual or threatened injury (injury in fact);

2) that injury can fairly be traced to the challenged action of the defendant (causation); and

3) that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision (redressability).

These elements ensure that the court system is used for resolving real and specific disputes where the parties involved have a genuine interest in the outcome.

If a party lacks standing, courts will typically dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim. This dismissal is not a judgment on the rightness or wrongness of the plaintiff’s position but rather a determination that the issue is not one the court can or should decide due to the plaintiff’s lack of a direct stake in the matter.

COPA’s original lawsuit has legal standing because COPA claims that Dr. Wright’s exertion of rights over the Bitcoin database and whitepaper hurts COPA members.

However, Dr. Wright has now offered to give up any claims on the Bitcoin database and whitepaper. This concession effectively removes the only justification for COPA’s legal standing in this lawsuit.

Other than the database and whitepaper, what injury does COPA still suffer to give it legal standing?

They can’t simply say, “We don’t like him claiming himself to be Satoshi,” or “We just couldn’t stand anyone making false claims,” etc. That might be very true, but it falls into the category of social and moral disagreements. It does not give legal standing in a lawsuit. Otherwise, we humans will need to settle every disagreement in the courtroom.

They can’t amend its lawsuit to claim that, even after the threat of the Bitcoin database and whitepaper has been removed, COPA members are still hurt simply because Dr. Wright says he is Satoshi. If Dr. Wright is not Satoshi but acts like he is, it would be wrong, of course. But in that case, it would be the real Satoshi or his representative, not anyone else in the world, who has legal standing against Dr. Wright. (The absence of any such act by Satoshi, in fact, the complete absence of Satoshi’s existence anywhere in any form in opposition to Dr. Wright, brings up the matter of “the impossibility of a non-Wright Satoshi: see To prove a negative in COPA v. Wright.)

Nor can they bring up Dr. Wright’s patents, which may be their real motive, but they can’t make it overt in COPA v. Wright. The patents are even further removed from a proper legal standing in this case because the case does not involve a specific controversy over a patent right.

First, Dr. Wright has not sued anyone for infringement. He may do so in the future, but that will be a different case and will have its suitable defendant.

Second, if COPA doesn’t like those patents, there are many ways to challenge them. For example, COPA may file a petition for inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), or covered business method review (CBM) challenging the validity of a granted patent. It may also file a declaratory lawsuit for non-infringement. But these all require separate legal proceedings.

I don’t wish that the judge would throw out COPA’s case due to its lack of legal standing. The world is waiting for an answer to the big question, “Who is Satoshi?” This trial offers the best opportunity to answer.

I will accept the findings and verdict of the trial if it’s clearly supported by the evidence, regardless of how surprising it is. I only pledge loyalty to truth.

[Recommend my two-volume book for more reading]:

BIT & COIN:  Merging Digitality and Physicality