Black Star Investments, Block, BtcTurk, Chaincode, Coinbase, Human Rights Foundation, John Pfeffer and MicroStrategy all played a significant role in delivering the watershed moment for the open-source community

On Monday, May 20, Mr Justice Mellor handed down his written judgment in the COPA v Wright trial, concluding that every aspect of Craig Wright’s claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the author of the bitcoin white paper, are a lie.

This significant outcome – which means developers can continue their important work on the Bitcoin network – was made possible by consequential donations of time, funds and skills by COPA’s many donors.

In particular, COPA would like to thank Black Star Investments, Block, BtcTurk and its founder Kerem Tibuk, Chaincode, Coinbase, Human Rights Foundation, John Pfeffer, and MicroStrategy for their commitment to the alliance.

A COPA spokesperson commented, “Having broad-based support across the bitcoin community helped COPA stay the course over many long years of protracted litigation against Craig Wright. It’s as much the moral support, as well as the financial resources, skills and time invested, that helped get us to this critical moment for the whole ecosystem. Thanks to our donors, we have created more certainty and safety for those who have dedicated their professional lives to the world-changing potential of bitcoin.”

The COPA v Wright trial sought to disprove the claim made by Wright that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, the author of the bitcoin whitepaper and, consequently, the founder of bitcoin. This claim was, in effect, stopping the development of bitcoin, chilling and silencing developers with the threat of litigation, and undermining the entire spirit of the open-source community.

COPA is a non-profit community of people and companies formed to encourage the adoption and advancement of cryptocurrency technologies and to remove patents as a barrier to growth and innovation. The success of cryptocurrency depends on the community coming together to build and develop upon existing technologies to innovate, which is not possible when parties tie up the technologies in patents and litigation.