In the court case [2023] EWHC 3287 (Ch), Between: CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE Claimant in IL-2021-000019 (the “COPA Claim”) and CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT Defendant in the COPA Claim will THE HON MR JUSTICE MELLOR affirm that Craig Steven Wright is the pseudonymous ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ i.e. the person who created Bitcoin in 2009?
Relevant Documents:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/COPA-v-Wright-Others-2023-EWHC-3287-Ch-PTR-Judgment.pdf
"The forthcoming trial consists of the main trial in the COPA claim and the trial of a preliminary issue in the BTC Core claim. For that reason it has been referred to as the Joint Trial. It concerns the ‘Identity Issue’ namely whether Dr Craig Wright is the pseudonymous ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ i.e. the person who created Bitcoin in 2009."
This question will be decided according to the ruling of THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
The question resolves to YES if THE HON MR JUSTICE MELLOR, in his verdict states that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
The question resolves to NO if THE HON MR JUSTICE MELLOR, in his verdict states that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.
The question resolves to Undecided if THE HON MR JUSTICE MELLOR does not reach a verdict, a mistrial or out of court settlement.
The betting will be closed after the final submissions will be closed. This is currently planned to 15th March.
Please note, that you can still require remote access to the hearing following instructions on https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/crypto-open-patient-alliance-v-dr-craig-steven-wright-and-dr-wright-v-various/
🤦♂️ the stupid options on this market confused me. I was trying to buy No, but instead I bought shares of No on No, which is equivalent to buying Yes.
If the options are Yes and No just use a normal binary market
@jonsimon I made the same mistake first!🤗
Actually, this is my very first question here. I probably should use better description for options 1 and 2.
The binary market seemed not ideal because the is possibility of undecided outcome.
@FergusArgyll I am sorry, now I tried to clarify the outcome formulations. Os course, the initial meanings did not change.
Let's hope everybody will have time and ressorces to correct their bidding before the judge proclaims his decision.