Thread by @kurtwuckertjr

February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright "The Satoshi Trial" Master Thread.

DAY 5

A WOMAN'S VOICE ON THE STREAM. SOUNDS LIKE SHE IS ON THE PHONE AND SPEAKING DIRECTLY INTO THE MIC...

I'd like to take a moment to thank everyone who has been watching my streams (for subscribers only) and interacting with my threads here on X.

If you want to watch my video updates, please subscribe.

3 minutes in, and I have NO STREAM. I think they were going to change courtrooms, and I was worried this would happen.

STREAM ON! [Aerosmith Voice...]

COPA: Overnight, an article from Aus Financial Review says Speaking to Wright, he said he was not stressed with the grilling. Tiring, but not stressful. We think this represents a breech of giving evidence while still under oath for your to consider.
Grabener (CSW's KC): I don't know about this.

Mellor: Did you speak to someone?
CSW: Someone asked how I was doing in the elevator. I said I was tired, and then left. It was simple small talk in the elevator.

Mellor: Do you understand not to speak to media?
CSW: I do. I was simply just trying not to be rude before exiting the elevator.

Mellor: That's fine.

NOTHING FURTHER

COPA: Do recall earlier in the week speaking about an email to Jimmy Win?
CSW: Yes

COPA: You see the RCJBR address?
CSW: Yes

COPA: Your computer?
CSW: If it was named "Neo" it would be my nChain computer.

COPA: Yesterday we looked at your evidence of work on the bitcoin code. Timechain Alpha. This reads like initial set up READ ME file, yes?
CSW: It does.

COPA: It says to run like X
CSW: Yes

COPA: This is the READ ME notes from Satoshi in 2009?
CSW: Yes, they would have used the same code.

COPA: It would have been straight forward to take the pubic file to show us here?
CSW: Yes

COPA: Your solicitors at the time gave no indication that they may have been tampered with, yes?
CSW: Yes.

COPA: no COC info about potential tampering?
CSW: Yes

COPA: See the Blacknet doc from earlier. You said this was from a DeMorgan device.
CSW: Yes, but I didn't realize my disclosure info on my side may not pass all the way through to you. I'd also like to talk about something I said about CAH yesterday as well. I mentioned an interview with CAH yesterday. I meant to say he gave an interview outside of my court case, not an interview in court.

COPA: You didn't cast doubt on the doc.
CSW: I said it was 3rd party.

COPA: You recall you didn't say it could have been handled by dozens of people?
CSW: If it's 3rd party at all, it has doubt.

COPA: Did they report all intermediate COC?
CSW: I don't know. I had Ontier, Travers and Shoosmiths pretty closely together passing docs.

COPA: This doc was then handled by others, but if the native doc existed, it would have been handed over. But the first time we were told your docs may not authentic was later.
CSW: I can't change the fact that my docs are used by researchers in a corporate environment.

COPA: So your docs have authenticity problems?
CSW: I know my docs. I am not studying fonts. These are the docs that are used in my work.

COPA: You made excuses for the first time recently.
CSW: I have been clear on this since the Kleiman case.

COPA: In these proceedings, you didn't have any notes about authenticity until later.
CSW: My solicitors knew COC since at least 2017. I'm not sure what was communicated by Ontier to you at the time.

COPA: Why not disclosed immediately?
CSW: It was done years ago.

COPA: LaTex has only been brought up very recently.
CSW: My notes in Kleiman case says it.

COPA: Your versioning system didn't keep doc provenance.
CSW: Depends on the time.

COPA: You were unable to say whether draft white paper evidence have accurate metadata and therefore can't point to a reliable white paper draft from 2007 or 2008.
CSW: The handwritten copy, and others have been seen.

COPA: Where?
CSW: I don't know the ID numbers from the disclosure platform. There may have been font or metadata changes, but the content are correct as to what was created.

COPA: So there's no electronic form of the paper that is pre-issue and isn't mucked with?
CSW: What I'm saying is I can't quote a number. I could look in the disclosure platform and suggest which may be right.

COPA: You understand the importance of this, right?
CSW: Not in the way you're saying. Proof of authorship isn't about a key. Evidence is by action. The way the author of Don Quixote proved that he was the author of Don Quixote.

COPA: You're not asking the court to accept you are Satoshi based on evidence?
CSW: That's a misrepresentation. Apart from isolated servers that arent used, metadata would never be unchanged. Alternatively, I work in a corporate scenario in research. That's how we create our massive IP portfolio.

COPA: INTERUPTING

COPA: There are no files that don't have problems according to MAdden.
CSW: If my text was accessible and in a document, Madden assumed it was bad.

COPA: Blacknet paper from the new drive you discovered... We struggled to find anything in your reliance documents in the new drive. There are no docs in the new drive that help us correlate anything. Before you received the Madden report, your first set of reliance docs provided no notes that docs could have been altered.
CSW: It has been noted from the beginning that since Kleiman, notes have been put in that there are lots of 3rd party issues.

COPA: You discovered a new drive from your era in BDO?
CSW: I merely noticed it wasn't imaged by Alex Partners.

COPA: So what of those issues with this drive?
CSW: When over-writing files, you can workout which files are oldest by where they are placed in the drive.

COPA: The file types in the new docs had materially less metadata for forensics.
CSW: One of the main forensic developments is file carving. SANS Institute teaches this. If you're just a tool jockey, you won't see this, but if you do real forensics, you can match carved files with metadata. For example, I can't delete browsing history certificates.

Mellor: He's asking about metadata in the files themselves. You're talking about the data from older files. Metadata in the file itself is key.
CSW: The disk itself has a file log. The document links back to that. The drive has info about change history. If you have both, you can properly analyze.

COPA: Are you aware we didn't have access to the drive because we shouldn't have it.
CSW: I don't know what you did or didn't have access to.

COPA: We didn't have that material for analysis. Agreed?
CSW: There are Dragon Files which include WAV files with background info like my location while recording, for example.

COPA: There was no LaTex, C++ or other relevant things on that drive. Do you agree?
CSW: For the most part, yes.

COPA: The explanation for differences is you had seen Madden's discredits and chosen a new set of docs with little useful metadata.
CSW: False, there's a difference between company machines and my own machines and habits.

COPA: You're also aware that 11 of the 97 docs include work on quorum systems. And that quorum systems aren't mentioned anywhere else?
CSW: Not sure.

COPA: That work on quorum systems is precursor work to bitcoin?
CSW: Yes. nChain has pending patents based on this old work. I had to rush people to get a patent filed on Monday so it could be covered here in court.

COPA: These other drives given to Ontier in 2019, now, and in the course of preparing COC, you started looking in your home in September 2023. You should have done this for the McCormack and Granath cases.
CSW: I have noted this in Kleiman and McCormack case. I was told they weren't accessible. I found out Alex Partners didn't have the tools, so it was only in the last few weeks I realized they just didn't do it because it was hard.

COPA: Why wasn't this done better?
CSW: Example, LaTex files were coming up as system files because of search limitations, so we had to go back later to try to pull files in different ways to find the LaTex ones. Imaging my home server, I was told was impossible to image them in my home, so they have been on a years-long journey.

COPA: You said there would be better files.
CSW: I had screaming matches with my solicitors about the lack of docs, and Ontier told me it was my fault. Maybe it was my fault, but I expected paralegals to do this for me.

COPA: So, you plugged the Samsung drive into your computer to see if it worked? But you didn't access the files?
CSW: Correct.

COPA: When did you disconnect them?
CSW: I don't recall.

COPA: Did you leave them open with encryption down?
CSW: I may have.

COPA: Someone with such concern about security, perhaps should have been more careful?
CSW: My presumption was that my laptop was secure.

COPA: You're aware Alex Partners says they had no knowledge of these drives?
CSW: The serial numbers are in their files.

COPA: So, either your account is false, or their report is false.
CSW: The drives went into a drawer after imaging. They messed things up that has lost information.

COPA: Checking tweet from CAH of an image of a message you sent. Is this real? Says stickers from AP on some but not all, etc...
CSW: Yes. 5 drives imaged, and 2 not. But I thought all 7 had been imaged.

COPA: What else was put forward? Are any correct?
CSW: Some of the drives were broken, some were imaged correctly. 2 were imaged incorrectly, initially.

COPA: Some had stickers and some didn't because they were moved around. But no sticker says they might not have been imaged, but elsewhere, they had moved around by your son. Which is it?
CSW: A mix of both, potentially.

COPA: But if it hadn't been imaged, why do anything?
CSW: They should have all been imaged.

COPA: Another contradiction.
CSW: No.

5 MINUTE BREAK

COPA: Let's talk about the MYOB documents. You told us that the screenshots you shared where Ontier was shared passwords and such. They took screenshots before March 2020 according to you?
CSW: That's my understanding.

COPA: Shoosmiths sent us this letter this morning. Ontier sent us this to disclose. Ontier says they were given login details in March 2020. We didn't have access to it in late 2019. We created a series of screenshots on the 9th and 10th of 2020. It's right that Ontier wasn't provided login details in late 2019, isn't it?
CSW: No. Emails are already in disclosure showing otherwise. They received login details in 2019.

COPA: You were firm yesterday.
CSW: I know what I was told by them at the time, and the messages are in disclosure.

COPA: They were either lying to you then or lying to the court now?
CSW: Most of the Ontier people from the time are no longer there, so I don't know.

COPA: Handing a hard copy to CSW and his KC. You recall I was asking you about these IP addresses. This was nChain's address?
CSW: Yes.

COPA: It says here it's from your home area?
CSW: Yes

COPA: So you were wrong when you said it was nChain's and not your address?
CSW: No. I use VPN with a range of IP addresses.

COPA: Moving on to forensics on the BDO drive from Spencer Lynch. Lynch sees the drive was accessed and data was deleted. The last time of use on that computer was July 2007.
CSW: That's the last time it was booted as a PC. It was later run in VMware image.

COPA: Stroz Freidberg found that the Samsung drive of the BDO info was modified to look like it was from 2007. Do you agree?
CSW: No. Because there were unusual edit and create dates, they assume tampering. When copying, on the BDO drive, there are examples of static links. But moving files was a process from Xcopy that doesn't change files in the ways noted. It doesn't properly reference modify time, so that could be an issue. I demonstrated this in my witness statement.

COPA: You didn't specify this in your witness statement about initial discovery.
CSW: I believe I did. I didn't realize I had to clarify all my terminology. If you read my textbooks, you'll see how pedantic I am on terminology.

COPA: You didn't disclose all of this
CSW: Well, I wouldn't know necessarily how I did something 15 years ago.

COPA: Lynch says it was mounted on a Windows computer in September 2023.
CSW: Scroll up. You can see modified time errors in Linux. I don't have a normal environment. Create times can update without modify times updating when pasting across VMs. To access these files, we needed Papermaster, which doesn't exist anymore. So to access it, I had to run a VM to allow this.

COPA: Your witness statements about your environments were found by all experts to not work this way.
CSW: None of them have experience in VM, Citrix or anything relevant. They said there was no Citrix use, but the BDO files show that they are Citrix based.

COPA: That is disputed. Lynch says the clock was backdated as shown in transaction logs.
CSW: No, I did this myself to check. Backdating the clock would change the modify time. But this isn't what happened.

COPA: You see here what he says.
CSW: He's wrong. It would have impacted modify dates. Rather than relying on a blog, he should have tried to reproduce his presumptions.

COPA: You're aware that Stros Friedberg gave initial reactions to the BDO drive. You're aware they found signs of alteration?
CSW: On the Samsung drive, but I see their incorrect statements here too.

COPA: You had the opportunity to get a proper expert at that time.
CSW: the expert I wanted should have had SANS certification and a Citrix expert, and they weren't used. Shoosmiths was in a hurry, so I don't blame them, but it was a sprint at the time due to CAH stuff with Travers.

COPA: You had the opportunity to get an expert though.
CSW: I didn't get my expert, no. I also said Stroz Friedberg was a conflict of interest because their biggest clients are COPA members.

CSWKC: Please stop. This is privileged.

COPA: See this further expert report from Madden. There were 145 files which post date the July 2007 time which is after the last time the disk was used.
CSW: I described the cloning and the copying of files in the witness statement.

COPA: The timestamps show they were copied over and clock rolled back.
CSW: No, the modify and create dates wouldn't skew in that way. A simple test would show this. I demonstrated this in my witness statement. They wouldn't recreate their findings to demonstrate, and I don't believe they're impartial.

COPA: Yes, we have heard... The security environment shows that clock was set back.
CSW: SSIDs changes because it was a new computer. BDO merged to form a global firm. SSIDs changed when BDO NSW became BDO AUS. Between July and October, I copied the drive over.

COPA: Based on your story, it was a relatively small number of files including 71 reliance documents. Are you aware that those 71 files contain support of your claim to be Satoshi?
CSW: Yes.

COPA: Do you accept these findings that the expert found that BDOPC.4 has IDs that show modify dates in 2007?
CSW: I can't show them to be wrong from here. But we know that CAH got access to these drives in order to attack me.

COPA: So he modified your drive?
CSW: It would need to be analyzed. I do know CAH posted extensively on Twitter of my browsing history and file structure. So he had deep access.

COPA: Madden recovered 2 deleted files. They were the same except for the blank space. Are you aware of these?
CSW: Only as it's been pointed out by Madden.

COPA: Does it surprise you that there's an image file of a list of your reliance docs?
CSW: I wouldn't be shocked. Mr Ager-Hanssen tried to poison even my relationship with my own wife, so I wouldn't be surprised to see such a thing poisoned in my system.

COPA: So this was planted by him?
CSW: Someone working for him. I know he doesn't know Linux, but the screenshots he shared were from my Linux based system.

COPA: You're aware this was returned.
CSW: I haven't seen it back, so I don't know.

COPA: You should have them back.
CSW: My solicitors haven't returned them to me so I can't access them.

COPA: Nothing prevents that.
CSW: that's not what I have been told.

COPA: Do agree this is consistent with you editing the document to say a timecoin system rather than a bitcoin system?
CSW: If this has been tampered with by CAH's people, I don't know.

COPA: the experts are all finding the wrong things?
CSW: they don't have expertise in any of the systems.

COPA: Finding of forgery are CAH's doing?
CSW: Yes, he was silly enough to tweet proof of that. He mentioned ChatGPT use in my patents as well. He bragged about accessing my system.

COPA: The experts and hackers are all fools and you, the great security expert let your system get hacked?
CSW: I didn't expect the group policy update would contain a backdoor. I didn't assume our CEO was working against the organization.

COPA: You didn't see fit to mention this in your witness statement?
CSW: It become important after I knew it was compromised. I trusted nChain. But CAH even got abusive toward my wife in threatening her to work with him against me.

COPA: When did it first occur to you that the BDO drive could have been tampered with?
CSW: Not as early as it should have been. I didn't think I could be hacked.

COPA: Can you give us a rough date?
CSW: I should have known by the 23rd of September. It didn't occur to be fully until December. My wife had to talk to me to consider this.

COPA: You didn't say any of this in your witness statements.
CSW: I didn't believe it was possible even when I first saw my screenshots.

COPA: This doc here is about quorum systems. What is this?
CSW: We did a king's wifi exercise where I had to breach wifi in a red/blue team scenario.

COPA: You're aware Madden found this was created in a 2020 version of Windows.
CSW: It's possible people tampered with this drive.

COPA: So it's CAH hack again?
CSW: I know he accessed the drive, and if the files are mine, then they could be real or fake.

COPA: Asking about a few others in rapid succession. This is from your LLM?
CSW: Yes

COPA: Another RTF file created in 2020 Windows.
CSW: I'm aware of his finding.

COPA: And the Grammarly timestamp
CSW: I think the deleted one had no timestamp from Grammarly.

COPA: This was forged by you in September 2023 and seeded.
CSW: The deleted file has no Grammarly, so that makes my case for me.

COPA: Proof of work calculation from hashcoin white paper from LaTex. Also in timecoin white paper.
CSW: Yes

COPA: Ms Field was clear here that this was on your instruction. You didn't notice anything wrong?
CSW: No

COPA: Here's the doc. Madden made a finding there was a previous version with changes.
CSW: I'd say it the other way around.

COPA: You see changes to the authorship date. References to bitcoin changed to timechain and hashcoin. These are very clear indications of modifications to look like a previous system to support your case.
CSW: It's the other way around. Someone making it look like there's bad files. This file had a web cookie. I can't see how, but Bird and Bird's IP address was recorded accessing the file.

COPA: What are you suggesting?
CSW: I'm not sure, but with your open wifi anyone could have done this to implicate B&B in something.

COPA: We don't have open wifi, and this is a rather scandalous accusation!
CSW: Well, I reported it to Travers and Shoosmiths.

IF TRUE ^^^ THIS IS CRAZY/ILLEGAL.

COPA: Moving on. Here's another forgery by you.
CSW: False.

COPA: You said this was a LaTex file used to generate a white paper. You see the date here is 2016.
CSW: I do

COPA: In the doc you say you produced, is there a question mark on this reference?
CSW: CAH was shown to have access to the Linux machine. There's an injunction, and he has fled the country.

COPA: It's a bizarre reference without a date.
CSW: Sure, and I would put "ND" if I don't have a date of publication.

COPA: CAH got lucky or you forged this?
CSW: He was monitoring me for months, with all of my communications, so no, not lucky at all.

COPA: This indicates ChatGPT being used
CSW: No, it shows a note.

COPA: It's classic ChatGPT
CSW: No it isn't. ChatGPT uses common annotation standards. It uses continuous replication and this indicia has existed for 20 years. People like me who write things get stolen from by ChatGPT.

COPA: You presented a LaTex file that would show you as the author of the white paper.
CSW: That's what it says.

COPA: In the final version, gaps were left in the references section for precisely the references which Madden found were different between docs.
CSW: No, they're not precisely the same.

COPA: Let's put them together to compare.
CSW: See, not the same.

COPA: That's another forgery, isn't it?
CSW: No

BREAK FOR LUNCH

Subscribe for video summary!

BACK!

CSW: I want to apologize to opposing counsel. I was wrong when I claimed my IP address was nChain's. I checked over lunch, and I was wrong.

COPA: You're aware that Madden discovered two documents where the pixel resolution matched and showed which was the precursor document?
CSW: I'm aware of his findings. It looks like a PDF converted to TIFF

COPA: A forgery
CSW: Converted to a TIFF.

COPA: This is the BMP file on screen?
CSW: Yes.

COPA: Moving on. Is this your information and contact at Charles Sturt Uni?
CSW: Yes

COPA: Experts note that it was added.
CSW: In 2007.

COPA: That addition was in September 2023.
CSW: No.

COPA: You see edits from blockchain to hashchain, etc?
CSW: I see them

COPA: You see these papers relating?
CSW: And recognize. I've read them both.

COPA: So this was CAH getting lucky again to slot in reference files?
CSW: No, that's like saying a blank document has slots for words.

COPA: He found odd questions marks noting where references would go.
CSW: I write what I write, then I reference what I need

[SIDE NOTE. SATOSHI DID SIMILAR CREDENTIAL STUFFING IN THE WHITE PAPER]

CSW: This is easy in LaTex

COPA: What?
CSW: If you go into the setting, you can set it up to auto-create a table.

COPA: The reality is that you removed the table to create a document that wouldn't have references yet.
CSW: No, this is easy, and it's how I work. If you take a LaTex and want to convert to Word, you can add the content table, and it does that for you.

COPA: This is not another extraordinary effort by Ager. It's another forgery
CSW: It's shockingly simple, actually.

COPA: You see the change to show UK legislation where it would have been Sarbanes Oxley. It shows direction of the edit from 2018 to something earlier.
CSW: It shows someone left a marker to change.

COPA: Someone took pictures of your screen and put them online.
CSW: Not my screen. I use Windows. The screenshot is Linux being used to remotely access my computer. It's a picture of a Linux machine accessing my machine by Mr Ager-Hanssen.

COPA: Next doc. Madden considered this and two related docs. All had creation times at the same time in September 2017. Access and modify times are the same in August 2008 separated precisely by 1 years and for a PNG file. Madden saying this was created in a version of Word not existing until later.
CSW: I thought it was WordPad

COPA: Let's check. This timing doesn't make sense.
CSW: At the time, I was a Microsoft developer, and I had access to their source code.

COPA: Your invention has run dry, has it? It's just back-dated.
CSW: No.

COPA: This is a forgery
CSW: Someone had modified it. I can see that.

COPA: PDF creator shows LaTex via Pandoc. You're aware the inventor of Pandoc says this was added to Pandoc in 2017 as a standard thing. Dating the doc to later than 2006.
CSW: PDF Created by Latex via Pandoc. It's not updated by the program, but by a person.

COPA: Professor MacFarlane says the template is from 2022.
CSW: He didn't look at the PDF creator label. It's manually added. I'd love to see which version he can create that in.

COPA: So now you know Pandoc better than it's creator?
CSW: I'd like to see it demonstrated, because I couldn't demonstrate a marker in Pandoc that says "Latex via Pandoc"

COPA: So CAH hoped this would work?
CSW: they made sure people would know about them

COPA: How?
CSW: Because in the mock trial, I had a list of documents that matched these, and Zafar (CAH's guy) examined them. There was a fake judge and solicitors. And I got grilled on the evidence. I was examined on a folder with 50 documents in it that they were going through with allegations of fraud, and that I was going to lose. They pressured Matthews that he would be up for perjury if he didn't drop out. And those docs are what Madden had.

COPA: So Zafar was in on the plain to frame you?
CSW: I have no idea who did what. I spent a day being abused in a mock trial where I was told that if I didn't play ball, they would destroy me. They recorded me and hoped to get me to say I wasn't Satoshi or they would pull nChain funding, etc... They spoke to my ex wife and abused her too and went to other people in this trial to pressure them to drop out.

COPA: Who's they?
CSW: Ted Lovedate(sp?)

COPA: Ted pressuring witnesses?!
CSW: I'm not sure. I know it was illegal, but I was locked in a room and told I couldn't leave.

COPA: Who else?
CSW: I don't know the whole list. A really tall guy - ex CIA - another guy who he said was Mossad. I don't know because he has lots of silly people who pretend. Their company tried to break into the computer room at nChain and brought our IT guy to tears with threats of violence. Criminal charges now pending.

COPA: And this is forgery too?
CSW: I have never forged a document.

COPA: And you didn't pop this out when explaining the docs to your solicitors?
CSW: I didn't realize at the time.

COPA: This is another forgery.
CSW: No

COPA: this presents as a code file for bitcoin.
CSW: It's a node simulation

COPA: See code here: You're aware the lead designer of the Chrono time utility says it was standardized for C++ in 2011.
CSW: I stated Project Chrono, not Chrono.

COPA: Sleep was also standardized in 2011.
CSW: But Integys, my company, was producing C++ libraries at the time including for "sleep" using in gaming.

COPA: Hinant says it couldn't exist in 2007.
CSW: He assumes only he could make standard libraries.

COPA: So you know more about Pandoc and Chrono than their creators?
CSW: Pandoc guy didn't notice it was manual, and Project Chrono isn't Chrono.

COPA: Project Chrono is for simulation of movement of machines and such!
CSW: This is a node simulation. it does state-based simulation analysis.

COPA: This doesn't make sense.
CSW: C started way back and became Object C, then later C++. There are different versions for different systems. They got integrated to Linux eventually, but sleep sleep 4 was in other versions of C.

COPA: You also came up with the identical syntax of what was used in the standard Chrono library?!
CSW: It was an embedded standard library. That's what my company did. This is standard format from standard C. A simulation package has times.

COPA: The syntax is from Chrono Library
CSW: Look here at the code. It's a simulation system and created a state-based race condition against honest and dishonest miners. It's a simulation of the Byzantine General's Problem.

COPA: the creator says this is nonsense. Moving on.

COPA: Is this your book on IT Regulatory Standards?
CSW: Yes

COPA: In this section, you're addressing threats to environments.
CSW: Where insiders are the worst, yes.

COPA: did you write that insiders are more dangerous than outsiders?
CSW: I did.

COPA: Back to Madden report, you didn't say you used LaTex earlier.
CSW: I don't recall when I said it, but it is in my evidence submitted.

COPA: You said here it was iterative and written in hand and using Dragon. You refer to the process of producing and editing. You don't use the word LaTex. It has become the theme everywhere lately, But this critical detail shows you know how Satoshi wrote the paper, but didn't say this?
CSW: It was in the hand-written notes already.

COPA: Here's CAH saying you googled LaTex recently. We found out then that you had Overleaf source files.

CSW KC INTERJECTS

COPA: Moving on

COPA: Shoosmiths said you received a folder in Overleaf with LaTex files that reverse engineering the code so precisely recreates the white paper, that it can't be disputed.
CSW: Witht he caveats I gave

COPA: What caveats?!
CSW: IEEE stuff, etc...

COPA: These differences came after the report.
CSW: I don't know when you got them.

COPA: Your LaTex files were supposed to reproduce a precise reproduction in December.
CSW: No. I said, in the same environment, it would.

COPA: Here's a letter from Shoosmiths about Ontier. You had no record of this advice or witness statement. Ontier informed us that no advice was given.
CSW: the people I was working with at Ontier are no longer there.

CSW KC: These documents speak for themselves. He's trying to lead CSW to violate his own privilege.

Mellor: We agreed privilege was waived.
CSW: Only on Zafar

Mellor Shakes His HEad

Grabiner: Can we note my objection?

COPA: The question is who do you say gave you the advice not to disclose the Overleaf information.
CSW: A young junior solicitor amid Kleiman case when Rivero team was at my house to discuss.

COPA: this would have been obviously wrong.
CSW: No, in Kleiman, nobody disputed that I was Satoshi, so we didn't have to disclose that.

COPA: But in this case, it's different.
CSW: Ontier reused the disclosure documents. Nobody said we needed to do more.

COPA: Here's where we see order for these proceedings.
CSW: But they were simply reused. Nobody re-did discovery. I was told we could reuse what we had. Alex Partners docs got reused. Nobody bothered to ask if there were more files.

COPA: You see here where it says it would compile to the white paper, but that there were some small edits to the later version of the white paper. This is the first time you explained that there were qualifications needed to produce a precise reproduction of the bitcoin white paper?
CSW: No.

BREAK TIME

Check out my morning video update for subscribers only!

COPA: I'll start by being fair and making a correction. Your qualifications of your statement were added on the 29th of December.
CSW: Thank you

COPA: From Spencer Lynch, he explains that it would be extremely difficult to get an exact match of the white paper using LaTex. In contrast, it could be replicated in OpenOffice as the metadata says was done originally.
CSW: Yet, he didn't demonstrate. These "experts" needed demonstrations to even attempt to use the software.

COPA: What about this expert. Is he qualified?
CSW: But he isn't independent. He's a BTC Core developer and attends their conferences and has significant investments in BTC which will lose value if I win.

COPA: Do you accept that modifications would make it different?
CSW: Yes.

COPA: Do you agree steps would need to be made to reproduce?
CSW: Someone would need to do work to make it look like it was from OpenOffice. While I was writing on Steganography and IT Audit, things like Snow allow white space water marking to prove something was fingerprinted without being obvious.

COPA: You want to extraordinary effort to make this in LaTex
CSW: I was writing on Steganography at the time and ued the techniques in my papers. Digital watermarking.

COPA: To prove it was you?
CSW: More for fun

COPA: Doesn't that prove you were Satoshi?
CSW: It could help, but I didn't think it would understood. I act poorly when people don't understand me, so it wasn't explained well.

CAN WE SEE THAT FINGERPRINT PLEASE?!

COPA: Note the differences from the control version and your LaTex file.
CSW: I used MyTex and LaTex plugin. And GrindeQ. I used them back then. I have moved over to web based versions. Because of that, when you move to Overleaf, you don't have access to OpenSymbol, which is what was used for the white paper. On top of that, other changes make the compile imperfect.

COPA: There are other content differences.
CSW: I corrected things. It was a live doc, and I didn't expect it to become all of this.

CSW: The extended compiler for the graphics engine in Overleaf is different now too.

COPA: Lynch found issues with Lambda
CSW: Overleaf replaced the font with Times New Roman intstead of OpenSymbol. So it substituted poorly.

COPA: Note this symbol overflowing the bounding box. A difference in alignment between the arrow and the box. Further differences.
CSW: He said he used TextLive, so of course it will fail. It's like opening an OpenOffice in Word.

COPA: Rosendahl failed?
CSW: YEs, the BTC investor.

COPA: He says most of your LaTex files wouldn't compile properly at all in 2008-09 version either.
CSW: He says Z Latex, but Lua LaTex would. He chose to use Z and didn't test the right version or year.

COPA: He said it wasn't possible to compile them except one file.
CSW: It's like when Adobe Acrobat won't open in NotePad. Funny, that!

COPA: He says thigns weren't available.
CSW: I can show where they are.

COPA: It can be concluded the packages didn't exist at the time. Open source info shows it didn't exist at all.
CSW: Rosendahl has extensive connection to your clients. He didn't use the right software, and he intentionally skirted standards to show it's different.

COPA: It's absurd to say he has breached his oaths.
CSW: No. He has coded with them and assets with them. He isn't independent.

COPA: It's not too hard to reverse the public white paper to LaTex, but difficult to make it perfect.
CSW: No, you'd get a horrible mishmash.

COPA: Experts say easy to produce something like you, but difficult to create perfect.
CSW: Their attempts didn't even get close.

COPA: You're also not independent.
CSW: Neither are the LaTex

COPA: Lynch too?!
CSW: He's from Stroz, so not independent. He isn't an expert. I had to walk him through it.

COPA: They said the output was close.
CSW: No, it replicated every character as individuals, not words or other structure. Every dot in its own space.

COPA: You're aware Overlead handed your LaTex history to Stroz?
CSW: Yes

COPA: This doc was supposed to be perfect. Didn't occur to you that you shouldn't be mucking with it.
CSW: Before I did anything, I gave Shoosmiths the untouched doc.

COPA: Were they in your presence?

KC Grabiner: Please stop dragging the client into privileged waters.

CSW: I don't need to be Satoshi to go after database rights. Taproot violates my patents. I don't want to litigate identity. I want my IP protected.

COPA: You forged this.
CSW: I created the white paper in 2008.

COPA: Moving on. Going over the characteristics of bitcoin in your view.
CSW: As the creator of the system, yes.

COPA: There's nothing that only the creator would know, is there?
CSW: there probably is, but if it's known, it's because I revealed it over the years. Szabo, for example, didn't know about Turing comleteness in bitcoin, but we patented methods and built it to prove it!

COPA: Couldn't someone else who isn't Satoshi do that?
CSW: No. They would have to study OLD bitcoin. People look at post 2013 code and the narrative. They never look at my code or my system or clear definitions.

COPA: You're referring to white paper that anyone can read.
CSW: But your side argues that nodes are something different than the white paper, so no, they don't seem to be able to read.

COPA: You haven't given info that only Satoshi would know.
CSW: Nodes as commercial agents is something I told to Martti, Gavin and others.

COPA: Do you accept the word blockchain precedes 2008?
CSW: Yes, in CBC Cypherblock Conversion. Cypher block chaining isn't blockchain. Hashcash also mentioned a chain of blocks which references B-Money, which references BlackNet.

COPA: The word blockchain was used in 1997 by Back.
CSW: No. But not in the same context.

COPA: It was a term used at the time.
CSW: You're being disingenuous with that.

COPA: I'm not saying it's used the same. But "block chain" isn't in the white paper either.
CSW: No, it isn't.

COPA: You say you started in C coding when age 8-9, then games when you were around 11.
CSW: I started with KNR C. Early version from the 80's. It became Object C later in 85ish. It morphed into Solaris C which is gone. In 1989, formal C++ and ANSII C++ were developed. I started with them and moved toward C++

COPA: You're aware the C++ designer gave evidence that the name "C++" started when you were 13. Your elaborate explanation was developed in response.
CSW: No. I have is original book and the KNRC version.

COPA: You fabricated use of C as a child and embellished when it was found out.
CSW: I was told my original statement was long and rambling, so I simplified.

COPA: You said you coded competitively in C++ with SANS coming in 3rd, 4th and 7th place. Is this email about that?
CSW: Yes

COPA: It says it's a competition to find coding flaws in textbooks?
CSW: Yes, for security vulnerabilities and suggesting alternatives for more security.

COPA: Here's what you wrote
CSW: this is a summary document.

COPA: It wasn't for extensive segments of code
CSW: No, but it was for CERT, and I wrote some of the exam. It was for re-writing code.

COPA: Not your own extensive coding?
CSW: No.

COPA: You said you worked an Aussiemail ISP until 1997. Is this a copy of your CV from BDO?
CSW: One of them.

FIVE MINUTE BREAK

COPA: Your CV from BDO
CSW: I had 4 depending on the area [of expertise]

COPA: AussieMail 1996-97? Managing a corporate technical team?
CSW: Yes. Managed code and built systems in C and C++. This was at a time when we needed to build systems from scratch.

COPA: You recall a payment protocol called Millicent
CW: It used digital signatures and Scrip as a way to program.

COPA: No docs?
CSW: There's some in my research

COPA: No connection to bitcoin?
CSW: It was based in Forth just like bitcoin. Millicent couldn't figure out how to distribute, so every user had to be their own bank.

COPA: None of that is in your witness statement.
CSW: I think it is

COPA: You refer to Millicent, but not about coding.
CSW: I said I coded in C. I didn't want to ramble. But I designed a system based on these.

COPA: You attended symposiums about tech, not digital cash, but treated them like cash events?
CSW: I was at the launch of lots of these things. I got hired by the AUS Stock Exchange because of my coding in money systems from DEC which is related.

COPA: I'm not suggesting you weren't into computers. But not into digital cash.
CSW: Millicent worked in DEC. Compaq took them over, and wasn't interested in the cash model - which is why Google exists today with the ad model. We needed distributed cash, but Compaq had no interest.

COPA: Moving on to DeMorgan, you primarily worked through DeMorgan from 1997 to 2003.
CSW: It was De Morgan than DeMorgan PTY LTD, then the dotcom crash happened then DeMorgan Information Security Systems.

COPA: Says it existed to research digital cash.
CSW: Yes.

COPA: No evidence though!
CSW: The Blacknet work was all based on cryptocredits. B-Money was based on that, so I tried to create an encrypted internet with small payment tokens for micropayments.

COPA: Other than the DeMorgan documents which are fake, there's no evidence.
CSW: Actually the AusIndustries docs that you brought in show Blacknet work which became bitcoin and Metanet.

COPA: You don't mention cryptocredits.
CSW: You don't need to. It's implied in Blacknet. the end goal isn't bitcoin. It's a timestamp server to create data integrity over time.

COPA: Back to your CV. Work at DeMorgan summarized all about IT security.
CSW: Bitcoin is about IT security. I'm working to create a system where we can prove every paragraph provenance forever.

COPA: You said a major part of DeMorgan was digital cash, but it's not in your CV.
CSW: I didn't create that CV. There are multiple CVs. There's also CV for programming, financial audit, digital forensics... The extra added was for data integrity and I founded the digital forensics branch.

COPA: So there's a digital cash CV?
CSW: I don't know. BDO wasn't interested in digital cash.

COPA: Your LinkedIn Profile from 2015. Bottom of the page Demorgan. Once again, all about IT Security. Not about digital Cash.
CSW: Look at the top. Managing director of DeMorgan with focus on FinTech. As that, I made systems for Lassetter's, The stock exchange, and all of it is based on token systems.

COPA: All of these make it clear it was IT security.
CSW: 1: I don't manage LinkedIn, 2: These systems were all on an early version of what became bitcoin. They were hashchain systems. they were timestamp servers and immutable logging. This is why I talk about tripwire systems. I developed the systems that use proto blockchains for IT security.

COPA: You were just the IT security guy.
CSW: You don't have large R&D depts for an IT Security guy. I created the systems that Deloitte couldn't. I even created the internet voting system using my designs. I'm just the security guy who created the secure systems in the banks, the voting and logging and game management for PlayBoy, Lassetter's and Dept of Homeland Security...

Mellor: Dr Wright, you have had a hard week. We will be back on Monday.

COPA: Housekeeping: We should be done with CSW Wednesday. New analysis is being done in Overleaf, and Mr Gunning might want want to examine CSW on it when it's done.

Mellor: When will it be ready? Grabiner, will your team want to discuss this with CSW?

GRAB: Yes, we would want to see it. Sometimes the docs speak for themselves. So, maybe they could let them speak for themselves rather than going through every line because they can do it more simply in closing. This could reduce time, but we would want to see it if produced.

Gunning: I may not want this at all.
Hough: We will pass along the report as soon as possible to everyone. We have been careful.

Mellor: Whenever it's ready, do it.

ALL RISE.

And here's my video summary! You would get 2 of these per day if you would subscribe to my content on X! Click here: @kurtwuckertjr and press the purple button.