The Battle Over Bitcoin Billions: Inside the Kleiman v. Wright Case as Defense Witnesses Take Stand

A federal civil trial in Miami is intensifying as the stakes soar ever higher. At the center of the dispute: 1.1 million BTC, currently valued at approximately $98 billion – a sum that has only ballooned since the original lawsuit was filed. The case, known as Kleiman v. Wright, pits the estate of Dave Kleiman against Craig Wright, who claims to be the inventor behind Bitcoin itself.

The trial has already seen heated courtroom moments. When plaintiffs’ attorneys called for sanctions over alleged witness intimidation through private Slack messages, the judge ultimately decided to let proceedings continue, focusing her attention only on comments that could directly sway the jury. The drama underscores just how contentious this case has become.

The Core Dispute: Partnership or Fiction?

The fundamental question before the court is whether Dave Kleiman and Craig Wright formed a legitimate business partnership to develop Bitcoin, or whether Wright’s claims of collaboration are fabricated. Dave Kleiman, a computer expert and military veteran who lived in Florida, passed away in 2013. It wasn’t until years later that his brother Ira Kleiman learned through an email from Wright that Dave allegedly played a role in Bitcoin’s creation.

What started as a cordial exchange between Ira and Craig eventually soured into suspicion and legal action. The lawsuit, filed in 2018, accuses Wright of forging documents and misappropriating assets – including bitcoins, intellectual property, and valuable trade secrets – that may have belonged to Dave Kleiman. The damages sought exceed $11 billion, not including the return of the BTC holdings themselves or punitive damages.

Forged Documents at the Center of the Evidence

Matthew Edman, a cybersecurity expert brought in to examine the paper trail, presented damaging testimony. His forensic analysis identified numerous documents with internal contradictions and impossible timestamps. Some allegedly created between 2011-2013 bore metadata indicating they were actually created in 2014.

One particularly telling example involved a Bitmessage – a supposed private messaging from 2012 – but the Bitmessage platform itself didn’t launch publicly until months after the date on the document. Another file used a Microsoft font that didn’t exist when the document claimed to be authored. These technical inconsistencies suggest a deliberate effort to construct a false historical record.

The Defense Responds: Undermining Dave Kleiman’s Technical Abilities

As the trial shifted to the defense’s presentation, Wright’s legal team pursued a strategic approach: diminishing Dave Kleiman’s technical capabilities. Expert witnesses called by the defense argued that Kleiman lacked the sophisticated programming skills – particularly in C++, the language used in Bitcoin’s core code – necessary to have co-authored Bitcoin.

One witness conceded, however, that his assessment relied solely on a resume provided by Wright himself. The same witness also acknowledged he couldn’t rule out that Kleiman might have contributed to Bitcoin development in other ways beyond software coding. This admission raised questions about whether the defense’s case rested on incomplete assumptions.

The Hard Drive Mystery

After Dave Kleiman’s death, his brother Ira reformatted his computer hard drives – overwriting 13 of 14 drives in the process. A digital forensics expert testified that this reformatting made it impossible to recover or verify the original files, much like destroying a library’s card catalog. The destroyed data could have contained crucial evidence either supporting or contradicting the partnership claim, leaving a significant evidentiary gap.

Witness Testimony Paints a More Complicated Picture

Lynn Wright, Craig’s ex-wife, testified via video deposition that while Craig was always writing papers on various topics, she didn’t recall specific discussions about mining Bitcoin or details about his crypto holdings. She noted that during a meeting in Orlando, Craig, Dave, and she had gathered socially – describing it as having “a mutual admiration club going on.”

Craig’s uncle, Don Lynam, recalled receiving technical papers from Craig about cryptography and digital money systems that seemed like early drafts of what became the Bitcoin whitepaper. Yet Lynam stated Craig never mentioned collaborating with Dave Kleiman on the project, learning Kleiman’s name only later through searching online and finding co-authored books.

The Satoshi Nakamoto Question

Central to this entire dispute is the mystery of Satoshi Nakamoto – the pseudonymous creator who published Bitcoin’s whitepaper in October 2008. The associated wallet containing 1.1 million BTC has never been touched or converted to fiat currency. Wright first made public claims of being Satoshi in 2016, a claim met with widespread skepticism across the cryptocurrency community.

Medical Testimony on Limitations

Closing out recent testimony was Dr. D. Stewart MacIntyre, who provided medical perspective on Dave Kleiman’s condition. A paraplegic from a motorcycle accident, Kleiman suffered from bedsores, infections, and other complications. For most of his final years, he was confined to hospital care except for brief periods – raising questions about his capacity to actively develop software during the critical Bitcoin development window.

As the trial continues, the court must weigh competing narratives: the plaintiff’s case built on allegedly forged documents and circumstantial evidence suggesting partnership, against the defense’s portrayal of an inflated minor connection. With BTC now trading near $89K and climbing, the financial implications for whoever controls those 1.1 million coins remain staggering.