One of his lawsuits was to force Bitcoin developers to code a hard-fork of Bitcoin's consensus rules that would sign over a large amount of coins to him. This, too, is crazy and would never work in practice, but it paints a picture of what his plan could possibly have been.
As far as I remember, it was the name of a matured shelf company he purchased as part of falsifying his history. The provider had a range of companies to choose from, so he picked one with the most bitcoin-related name, which turned out to be Tulip Trading.
In my opinion, he's a conman, as in confidence man. His lies aren't high quality, but he tells them with great confidence, which sadly is appealing to many people. He can answer any accusation on the spot without hesitation. He's vague, so you kind of feel like what he just said contradicted something he said earlier, but most people's reaction is that they must have misunderstood him earlier. He's very good at technobabble; if you don't know that much about technical stuff, he can come off as highly knowledgeable. He will use emotion as necessary.
Over the eight years he's been at this, he has built up a cult following of people who worship the ground he walks on and will defend him ferociously at every opportunity.
Yes, he's a bad liar, but very few people can do what he does.
A bunch of bitcoin developers are still facing lawsuits from him, and it still requires a ton of attention from them and is causing them anguish. He may not keep launching lawsuits against random community members, but one of them still has one appeal case and one separate lawsuit against him, for having been mean to him on Twitter.
It's true that most people consider Wright a silly clown these days, but the chilling effect against Bitcoin development is hard to quantify and, I think, wholly real. This is why his latest loss makes today a good day.
He left court on a Friday, did the email forgery in the article over the weekend, and was back in court on Monday. Forging evidence is always bad, but doing it during the trial in response to something he was cross-examined on? That has to be particularly bad.
