“Satoshi Nakamoto” and nChain chief scientist Craig Wright has submitted two almost similar letters to the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Wright filed the two documents on 15th February in reply to the agency’s request pertaining to industry’s input and comments on Ethereum (ETH)’s technicalities and market.
The closing deadline with respect to such responses to CFTC’s request for input (RFI) was Feb. 17, the agency having given its reasons behind accumulating the information as follows: “The input […] will advance the CFTC’s mission of ensuring the integrity of the derivatives markets as well as monitoring and reducing systemic risk by enhancing legal certainty […] The RFI seeks to understand similarities and distinctions between certain virtual currencies […] as well as Ether-specific opportunities, challenges, and risks.”
Further, both of the comment letters associated to Wright that were submitted to the CFTC confirms his claim of having worked “under the pseudonym of Satoshi Nakamoto,” with which he allegedly “completed a project […] started in 1997 that was filed with the Australian government in part under an AusIndustry project registered with the Dept. of Innovation as BlackNet.”
As per a tweet made by Wright on 10th February, BlackNet which is an assumed predecessor to Bitcoin (BTC) was submitted to the Australian government in 2001. He tweeted “My stupidest mistake was going to the Australian government in 2001 and filing this shit.” Giving the images of the projects and submission made during that time
The tweeted BlackNet project has given rise to a significant argument in the past one week post the claims made by Wright to have completed and submitted the project seven years before the publication of the Bitcoin white paper, as well as its remarkable resemblance to the documentary explanation of the latter.
Further, a group of Redditors has claimed that the BlackNet paper has embezzled the official Bitcoin white paper which was published in October 2008 and that it possesses important corrections to an initial draft which had been shared by Satoshi in August 2008. Post reproduction of the corrected draft, not sharing the original draft, the redditors challenged that the 2001 R&D paper was just a disloyal trick intended to pretend Wright as the bona fide initiator of Bitcoin.
Moving forward to his rest of the comments to the CFTC, Wright apparently claimed that: “The amount of misunderstanding and fallacious information that has been propagated concerning bitcoin […] has resulted in my choice to start to become more public. The system I created was designed in part to end fraud as best as that can be done with any technology. The lack of understanding […] has resulted in […] a dissemination of old scams.”
According to reports, Wright is presently slowed down in a continuous legal battle in a case where he was alleged to have stolen Bitcoin(BTC) from the domain of deceased crypto developer David Kleiman. In the middle of last November, Wright had appeared again into the crypto attention in connection with the rancorous consequences of the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) hard fork that lead to Wright’s favored protocol turning off into the newly-forked Bitcoin SV (BSV) token.
Apart from Wright, various other crypto industry experts have responded to the CFTC’s FIR that includes members of the Ethereum Foundation, Coinbase, Consensys and blockchain consortium R3. As per the report, ErisX, Chicago-based crypto exchange, deployed its comment letter to the CTFC to claim a case for the potential positive impact of regulated ETH futures contracts.