Author: ZeMing M. Gao 高泽明, Business Architect, U.S. IP Attorney; Expert in "Company as a Product" (CaaP), Intellectual Property, Blockchain, Tokenization, and Smart Contracts (Build/Strategy/Economics); SEC/FINRA Private Securities Registered Representative; Chief Consultant at Caapable 开博咨询, advising multiple companies; gao@caapable.com

The following is a Chinese translation of the article "In expectation of the historic Bitcoin trial: Kleiman v. Wright" written by the same author, translated by Daniel Y. Zhou, a graduate of UCI computer science.

以下是如上作者的英文原作 "In expectation of the historic Bitcoin trial: Kleiman v. Wright" 的中文版 (翻译，周翼南，UCI 计算机系研究生）：

Introduction

After numerous delays, the Kleiman v. Wright case is scheduled to go to trial on November 1, 2021.

Many people are following the progress and outcome of this case, because it will not only determine the ownership of a vast amount of bitcoin (worth more than $60 billion at current BTC prices), but it may also provide, for the first time, some definitive answers to the question of who invented Bitcoin — Satoshi Nakamoto.

To clarify one point first: the court will not issue a ruling on the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, as that is not part of the pleadings. However, the foundation of this case rests upon the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, because the entire premise of the case is that Craig Wright owns at least 1.1 million bitcoins, which are known to be — and can only be — Satoshi Nakamoto's. This fact is undisputed among the parties. The plaintiff (the estate of David Kleiman) claims that Wright and Kleiman were together the true owners of these bitcoins. The plaintiff does not contest Wright's ownership of his share. The only dispute is how many of the bitcoins David Kleiman also owned. The plaintiff seeks up to 50% of them, not 100%, because even the plaintiff in this case does not dispute the role Craig Wright played in inventing Bitcoin and advancing its development.

Furthermore, the events establishing or negating any partnership between Craig Wright and David Kleiman cannot be presented without the context of the broader story. In order to demonstrate the relationship between the two men and their respective roles, the evidence presented by both parties will necessarily reveal who did what and played what role in inventing Bitcoin.

Therefore, those interested in the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto should also pay close attention to the evidence submitted by both sides during the trial — particularly the events that occurred prior to the white paper and the communications between Craig Wright and others, including David Kleiman.

Some argue that there is a distinction between "undisputed facts" and "proven facts." Yes, such a distinction exists in the rules of evidence. But the key is relevance. If a fact is irrelevant, even if undisputed, it will not be regarded as proven. But if it is relevant, then undisputed evidence will be treated as proven (or admitted), unless rebutted. And if it is not only relevant but foundational — forming the basis of some legal conclusion — then undisputed evidence must be treated as established fact.

In this case, while the court will not formally determine "Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto" as an abstractly "proven fact," it will determine specific events, such as what Wright specifically did in inventing Bitcoin. More concretely, the trial will bring to light pre-white-paper materials, such as drafts, discussions, and pre-release bit