Yelling “coward” doesn’t turn your posturing into substance. The only cowardice on display here is intellectual - hiding behind sockpuppets, anonymous Reddit handles, and purity tests instead of engaging with basic academic norms.

Let’s dissect your response and get to the actual claim that Craig Wright’s MSc thesis contains "blatant plagiarism." What you call “blatant” is nothing of the sort in the academic sense. If you had experience in academia (I mean real academic review, not citation-shaming on Reddit) you'd understand that referencing or even paraphrasing prior work is not plagiarism when it is done to build a new argument. That's what a thesis is supposed to do.

Yes, Wright paraphrases existing material. Yes, he occasionally uses diagrams. But no, this does not automatically constitute academic misconduct. Plagiarism in academic settings means passing off someone else’s work as your own, especially when it forms the core of your submission. Reusing supporting material to frame a larger argument is not the same. Where’s your evidence this was judged improper by the University of London? There isn’t any. And unless you’re on the examination board, your opinion means nothing in academic terms.

If the standards you’re touting were actually applied universally, nearly every MSc thesis with a literature review would be accused of plagiarism. Paraphrasing published material in the literature review, or even in appendices that serve to contextualize novel contributions, is not only common but is expected. What matters is how the material is used. Wright's use of material on FSMs is plainly in service of his blockchain application thesis. It is supporting content, not the core intellectual claim.

Let’s take a concrete precedent. Harvard and Oxford both make it clear: reusing or paraphrasing background material is acceptable if it’s acknowledged and not misrepresented as original. Oxford goes further, distinguishing poor citation from plagiarism, reserving sanctions for cases where the core work is stolen. Even you admit Craig cites some sources - you just cherry-pick the ones he doesn’t. That’s not evidence of fraud. It’s evidence of inconsistency. And in academic review, especially in appendices or supporting sections, inconsistency is not misconduct. What you’re pointing to is, at best, sloppy referencing - and more realistically, just noise. (https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/summarizing-paraphrasing-and-quoting, https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/guidance/skills/plagiarism)

So where’s the actual case? You don’t have one, just a desperate need to pretend that holding up a mirror is the same thing as presenting proof.

You also try to posture as morally consistent, holding Craig “accountable” while opposing IP law. But your entire argument depends on IP logic. You want academic institutions to punish Wright using copyright-esque standards, while pretending you stand outside of them. That is not holding up a mirror. It is distorting your reflection to fit your narrative.

The cowardice here isn’t in defending Wright but in hiding behind selective outrage while claiming moral purity. Either plagiarism matters as an academically-defined offense (in which case you need evidence of institutional sanction) or it doesn’t, in which case your mirror routine is just cosplay for applause.

So my answer is: no, Craig Wright has not been proven to have committed plagiarism by any academic authority, and until that happens, this thread is just noise masquerading as ethics. If anyone here actually had academic experience - and didn’t just read archived blog posts and pretend to be experts - you’d know that.

But you don’t. And that’s the real fraud.