Thread by @bitnorbert

Day 3 🧵

Good morning, fellow Hodlonauts! #WeAreAllHodlonaut

Court will be in session in 90 minutes. Today is set aside for statements from each party – so we'll finally hear from them in person. Hodlonaut gets the first half of the day, Wright second.

As always, you'll want to also follow @SpecificMills and @kristiandoble, who are in audience with me.

A big screen TV is being rolled in. Perhaps there is some chance today that plaintiff will finally get to play the videos that have been put off since Monday?

The room is fuller today. Tension in the air. Hodlonaut looked prepared as he arrived, said he will have an easy job today since all he has to do is tell the truth.

Court is in session. Hodlonaut takes the stand, facing the judge, his back towards the audience. Personalia is not read aloud. He tells the judge what his profession is. Judge reminds him of his obligations to the truth. Hodlonaut takes the oath.

Haukaas (Hodlonaut's lawyer) asks him to describe his background. Hodlonaut talks about his career as a teacher, time in Seetee, and his current position in Citadel21.

Hodlonaut talks about his time reading Bitcoin Talk, Reddit, and then Twitter when he registered there as @hodlonaut. Says his profile was small until 2019.

Says he got started with computers at a young age. He said as a child he wondered why the price of our most popular ice cream increased every year. Got interested in economics, worried about inflation. This was his entry into Bitcoin in 2013.

Is asked about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Gives a short history, says Bitcoin is the largest and most decentralised. Says small blocks allows more people to run nodes on inexpensive hardware. Decentralisation is required to have any value.

Says he has never "adored" ("forgudet") Bitcoin, but respected them highly. Is asked who Satoshi might be, lists some common candidates but says it's not that important. Says he gets Twitter DMs from people claiming to be Satoshi offering to help his court case.

First heard about Wright in 2015, at the conference where Szabo was present. Talks about how Wright argued with Szabo there about Turing completeness. Recounts briefly the Wired/Gizmodo story. Has to explain to the judge what "doxxing" means.

Says he got more skeptical by Wired/Gizmodo. Says he and "all others" paid attention to the various events, wondered why the "signing sessions" were done privately. Says Charlie Lee proved he was Litecoin's creator cryptographically, so why couldn't Wright do it the same way?

The Economist's signing sessions made him the most skeptical, since they had a crypto expert with them. Craig became aggressive when criticized by the expert. Haukaas refers to a related document, judge looks at it.

Says he was one of very many skeptics. Says The Guardian used the word "fraud" in 2016. Twitter and Reddit were in absolute consensus that Wright is a fraud. Says Vitalik stood up at a conference asking "why is this fraud allowed to speak at this conference?"

Judge is shown the Charlie Lee tweet where he proves his litetoshiness.

Says Sartre was thoroughly debunked as fake by respected cryptography experts, such as Robert Graham. Hodlonaut's statements were based on these and similar analyses.

Is asked why he thinks Wright wants to pose as Satoshi. Answers possible tax troubles, and general profit motives, illustrated by the name "Bitcoin Satoshi Vision", claiming to be "the real Bitcoin" to fool people.

Says he was provoked by BSV posing as Bitcoin, and is sad that people have lost money after having been fooled into it.

Gives more background on BSV, going through fork wars, Wright's time in BCH, BCH's fork into BSV. Describes how Wright's activity escalated, including on Twitter where he used a tone of arrogance and sharp words. Aggressive towards skeptics there.

Says the climate was one of anger towards a widely perceived fraud, including for using dead people as "witnesses". Cites a tweet asking if Wright is a fraud or not, 1100 replies had overwhelming consensus that Wright is a fraud.

Why do things in such a difficult and noisy way when all that's required is to prove it cryptographically? "Bitcoiners like truth and wants to verify", being asked to trust will not suffice as evidence for him or most other bitcoiners.

Says there is no dispute that BTC is Bitcoin, except in the BSV camp.

Is asked about Matonis, says he went on to work for nChain after the signing session. Says that while Matonis/Andresen posts remain up, their public positions have been modified.

Says he responded to one of Matonis' recent tweets to ask if he will confirm his position that Craig is Satoshi – this resulted in a block with no response.

He comments a tweet where he says "it blows my mind" that Coingeek et al can operate like they do, scamming people. Names people "Faketoshi, PedoCalvin" etc. He comments he was provoked that Coingeek and Bitcoindotcom were allowed to scam people.

These sites referred to BCH simply as "Bitcoin" at the time. Coingeek does this with BSV today, misleading people.

Commenting "sad pathetic scammer" tweet. Said he was disappointed and provoked that people were allowed to operate that way. Acknowledges he was being emotional.

Commenting "clearly mentally ill" tweet. Says he interpreted Wright's behaviour as mental illness, only reasonable explanation to him.

A bunch more audience members files in, perhaps a school class?

Comments "This space is so fascinating" tweet. Talks warmly about the Bitcoin community, but says the field also attracts bad people – not specifically about Wright.

Comments a tweet where he accuses Andresen of enabling Wright, re Sartre. Timeline of tweets and Graham's blog post being clarified for the judge.

Comments a tweet where he writes that "Twitter agrees" that Wright is a fraud – he thought Twitter had deleted Wright's account due to fraud.

Explains "taco pleb". This was a joke on carnivorism.

Lightning torch now. Was "a temporary full-time job" for him, being a "shepherd" for the torch. Says the tweet he is being sued for in the UK did not get much traction. Screenshot shows 12 likes. He rejects the traction narrative of the other side.

Is asked about "toxic". Explains maximalism. Other cryptocurrencies is seen as not having longevity due to not being decentralised. This attitude caused bickering online. The other side labeled maxis "toxic".

"There is bitcoin, and there is shitcoin", he quotes from Congress.

Maximalists are "brutally honest", says Hodlonaut. Judge asks "in the positive sense, right?"

Says when he received the letter online from Wright's lawyers, he thought it was a joke. Realised he needed to talk to a lawyer, who told him he has to take it seriously. The demand to acknowledge Craig as Satoshi was impossible for him to satisfy.

Back on Lightning torch. Explains Lightning Network. Says it breaks BSV's big block narrative – perhaps this was Wright's motivation for suing him specifically. Thinks he was seen as an easy target.

Got UK council, was advised to delete the tweets which he did in an attempt to stop the lawsuit. After this, he says there was a bounty on him, and a manhunt. "This was of course very stressful". Small Oslo BSV community organised a hunt.

Says they tried to move the case to Norway. Got a phone call from a private investigator. The woman at his place of work who gave his contact information apologised to him. Investigator had claimed to be police.

He ended up having to sign papers confirming he was the person behind "Hodlonaut".

He described some of the personal attacks he has received from the BSV camp. But has received overwhelming support from the Bitcoin community and cryptocurrency in general, says very thankful.

Says as hard as the trial has been, he has chosen this over falsely claiming he believes Craig is Satoshi.

Says the private investigator has sent private messages apologising for this role and that he is no Wright supporter, calling Wright a "gnome" ("nisse").

Breaking for 10 now.

Back. The defendant (Manshaus) is now asking the question.

Asks about hashtags. Manshaus is going to make the point that hashtags widen the traction of tweets.

Asks about "Craig Wright is a fraud week". Hodlonaut was going to spend a whole week tweeting about his views on Wright.

Asks if his Twitter style is how he speaks in real life. It's not. Hodlonaut says the tweets have been cherry-picked.

He says DN's journalist said "Lightning sharks" have collected a package of tweets to smear him, assisting the defense.

Manshaus asks if Hodlonaut reflected on using such a tone against a single person. He says he wanted more people to avoid BSV.

He says the tone should not be used in public discourse, but also that people shouldn't claim to be people they're not.

One of the tweets is shown. He is asked if the Sartre post claims to be proof. No, but it was of course taken as such, given the earlier "proof sessions" etc.

Andresen's "bamboozled" is discussed. The deposition comes up again. Manshaus reads from it. Andresen says "you bamboozled me, just not in the way people think". Andresen says "It's more likely than not" that Wright has keys.

Andresen's "gobledigook proof" may be about Sartre. So Andresen thinks it's proof. Hodlonaut rejects this, "more likely than not" is not proof.

A tweet about Chinese MSG (food?) comes up. Why tagged with "CraigWrighIsAFraud"? Because he was going to add it to all his tweets that week.

Hector Lopez tweet again. Hodlonaut did not respond to this tweet, asking how Wright is a fraud.

Had Ayre talked to/about Hodlonaut before? No. Can you understand why he was offended? Yes. Confirms he called Ayre pejorative names.

Why did he delete messages? Wasn't this an admission? No, just an attempt to get out of trouble. Did not think his language was any stronger than Wright's, all part of a climate.

Is sharp language part of his strategy? No, has no particular strategy. Colourful language is his online style. "Speaking my mind", says his profile.

Quoting a number of vaccine skeptical posts. Including one criticizing McCormack for not being as skeptical. McCormack replies and seems disappointed for having supported Hodlonaut's case.

Is asked if he blocks people on Twitter. Says that takes a lot. Blocks BSV people for their actions against him over time.

Is asked if he has multiple Twitter accounts. Says he has one other, names it. This account is still active, used when he worked for Seetee.

Comments that he is back on friendly terms with McCormack, who has offered to come to Norway for support.

Is asked about funds raised by OpenSats. Says it's not his project, explains. Many people have donated, and several large Bitcoin companies.

Is asked what his Telegram account is. Answers. Is he part of "Bitcoin Plebs"? Unsure, could be a member, or have been. Multiple groups with similar names. Is not very active.

Does he know "End The Fed"? No. Cannot remember any contact. Unsure if he's also on Twitter. Is not familiar with the contents of the screenshots of the group.

Shows a Telegram message from End The Fed linking to a tweet with an image of a spacecat.

Hodlonaut says he knows "Karo Zagorus" (spelling?). Says that user is more radical than himself.

Is shown a screenshot from Telegram, asked if he knows the various people in it.

I asked if he uses other platforms to discuss Bitcoin. No, only Telegram and Twitter.

Judge asks if Hodlonaut being called "a crypto troll" is worse than Wright being called a fraud. No, but worse is being made a public person, says his child may not like reading attacks on him where he's called "child-less".

Judge lets him comment tweets that were shown previously. He talks about civil liberties and vaccination programs in Canada, China etc.

He says that the part that accuses him of defamation is pretty lax on defaming him themselves, although he didn't necessarily mean that in a legal sense.

He says "Hodlonaut" was not anonymous as many people around him knew, he just didn't want it to be public knowledge.

Manshaus asks about "bamboozled" again. Hodlonaut says the total evidence indicates Andresen was fooled, and is in a difficult situation. Does not want to speculate why Andresen is quiet now.

Hodlonaut says he doesn't understand why Andresen and Matonis are not here to witness.

Hodlonaut leaves the stand. There is time before lunch, Wright cross-examination starts.

Wright states his full name, position. Judge tells him that he will tell everything he knows, not to conceal anything, he must tell judge if he's uncertain or can't remember. Lying to the court is a criminal offense. Wright takes the oath.

Manshaus asking when Craig first saw the tweets. He doesn't remember, it was pointed out to him at the time. He made several complaints to Twitter, enforce restrictions on his account which were reversed. He wanted his profile to be private, Twitter kept making it public.

Says Twitter finally deleted his account without further explanation. Several other people had attacked him on Twitter.

Craig says "fraud" means accusing him of raising money without going through legal requirements. Says he's worked with law enforcement and military, being called a criminal is something he takes very seriously.

Says he has no criminal convictions. Difference between debate and strong language. He got very upset after things he received in private messages. He did not know or care who Hodlonaut was. Says his family was attacked in DMs, racially.

"Clearly mentally ill": told he had aspergers when he was 16. Was incredibly hurt by the "clearly mentally ill" message. Is "Faketoshi" ok if only a few people do it? No, Something about Hitler supporters in Nazi Germany.

Manshaus addresses Wright as "Mister Wright", not "Doctor". Major oof.

Online harassment can cause people to commit suicide, says Wright re "Cright Wright is a fraud week". All his family and people he worked with saw the campaign every day.

Re "Twitter agrees": says Dorsey saw him as a threat, and therefore closed his account.

Commenting a tweet with "rabit and toxic". "These are the people who threatened to rape my wife and my daughter".

Manshaus blinks rapidly as he speaks. Is this a tell?

Says if Hodlonaut had responded to his letter, they could have reached an agreement.

Long pauses from Manshaus as he goes through the material to ask his next question.

Asks if he has seen Hodlonaut justify his "fraud" claims. Goes into a rant about bitcoin scaling and datacenters. Maximalists "hate what I want". Now attacks lightning as "losing the logs". Tracability is good because SIlk Road arrests, but Lightning doesn't log. Sounds angry.

Shows the "I hope [Hodlonaut] has a heart attack" Slack message. Shows a tweet with "screw you Toddler", about @peterktodd . Wright says Todd had told people he would "crash nChain" and "take all our patents".

Showing Todd tweet pointing out Wright's plagiarism. Says his law dissertation was found by the university not to be plagiarised, but "they still keep saying it is".

Wrigh says he sometimes overreacts when insulted. Is sometimes harsh in other cases too. Rants about fluffypony.

Shown a tweet of his about Lopp and Lee. "I've known Lopp since the early days of Bitcoin".

Now asked about his background. Close to his grandfather etc. We heard about this yesterday.

Still on old background questions. The time here is so limited, why not go into something more germane?

Building up a narrative of a sharp, intelligent man, working for justice and against child grooming etc.

Talks about the programming languages he prefer. C++, C# and Python. Said he used some open source things, such as Boost and Minix (!).

We're breaking for lunch now. Back in 45.

Craig now being asked about his supposed development of Bitcoin. Says his background was highly relevant. He had the idea for a "token system" in 1998. Wanted a more efficient payment system. Breakthrough in 2007, came up with triple-entry accounting 🙄

Again with the "there is no encryption in Bitcoin, it's not a cryptocurrency". There's only 12 nodes in Bitcoin creating blocks. Bla bla old rant.

Now showing a handwritten "white paper" draft. Because he's "old-fashioned". It says "Aug 2007" in handwriting.

He says he wrote the digital version of the white paper using voice recognition, using his keyboard only for corrections.

He says he had to dumb the white paper down after getting feedback from people. It was supposedly "much longer".

The handwritten paper is headlined "Electronic Cash", which is crossed out with red ink, replaced by "Bitcoin".

You guys should see this!

What were you writing about? Building a trusted system, but mostly about microtransactions. Now rants about holding being bad, gigabyte blocks being good, datacenters again.

Handwritten "minutes" note from BDO with Granger, about an "ecash white paper". I think we saw this in the McCormack case as well. This is supposed to be from 2007.

Repeats that he shared white paper drafts with multiple people, friends, family, colleagues, Wei Dai, he communicated with Adam Back, etc. Says he called himself Satoshi since 2005.

Says he didn't have problems writing the code, but it crashed on other people's computers. Names people Satoshi was in contact with.

Now on Uncle Lynam again, he supposedly ran a bitcoin node and his PC ran hot.

Says he interviewed for a PM position for Microsoft's Bing before the great financial crisis. That didn't go through, but he left BDO and supposedly started work on Bitcoin full-time.

(So I guess he could have worked on Bing instead of gifting Bitcoin to the world? Lucky us)

Making a big deal about the genesis block message. Says it's not anti-bank, it's against the nationalisation of banks.

Genesis message implies full auditability. He gets agitated when speaking on this. Not a cryptocurrency, because no encryption!

ATO supposedly told him Bitcoin is just a stupid hobby. Judge asks about ATO, he goes into it, said he talked to porn companies about using Bitcoin, and didn't ask people to hold (yes, this conversation is as messy as it sounds)

Now goes into white paper content. Again with full auditability. Waves hands, "it's a binary tree structure!", raises his voice.

Says it became too expensive to mine until Bitcoin's price went up. Manshaus interrupts, asks about Andresen. Was there a working relationship? Yes. Only work. "Gavin was remarkable", had more modern development ideas, RPC. "Remarkable, I loved him!"

Says Andresen unfortunately got convinced to move to GitHub, and moved the forum server, supposedly causing Craig to lose his access. He just wanted Andrsen to develop the code, and was very specific that the protocol shouldn't change.

Says after leaving Bitcoin, his marriage fell apart. "My first wife was not a happy camper". Says fighting the ATO cost him $2M. Started Panopticrypt, giggles at the name.

Goes into more details about his post-2011 life. Manshaus brings up the 2015 timeline.

Asks about the two versions of the contract re life story. Some stuff led to only the second version getting signed.

Talks about moving to London. Says Wired/Gizmodo was not the plan, the documents were doctored and "horrible to me".

McGregor changed tone, says Wright. Rather than long-term plans, he tried to sell something (didn't catch what) to Google.

Manshaus asks about @lopp, referring to a debate they had on Twitter. The "How Many Wrongs …" article is shown, categorised by Manshaus as yet more "articles from the internet". Wright is asked to comment on a bullet list of claims in the article.

Wright: "he disagrees with me". Goes into unrelated rant, Manshaus intervenes. Wright says the value of Lopp's company will go away "if Bitcoin scales".

The claims in the article do not negate him being Satoshi, acknowledges Wright to Manshaus. Manshaus again brings up Andresen, he recognised his writing style. Wright's said Satoshi never called Bitcoin a cryptocurrency, only that this term was "interesting".

He calls the bullet points "fluff". Is he better with code than with words? "I can write on a level that most people don't understand".

Says Bitcoin is pseudonymous, "this is where people go wrong". Satoshi wasn't after anonymity for himself.

Wright's misspelling "Bit Coin": Satoshi used all kinds of capitalisation, says Wright. And he used voice software which capitalised differently.

Wright: "I've used more bitcoin than anyone in the industry", referring to his reassigning "rights" to bitcoin without moving anything on chain.

A few other points are written off as "mischaracterised".

Curve type: says he chose one of 70 with the bilinear pairing property.

Wright says there isn't "simple cryptographic proof". You can't sign without identity! Voice raised.

Was Sartre intended as proof? No, instead the text was meant as a message that he would not sign (like Sartre wrote he would not accept the Nobel price).

Backdated blog posts? He disowns the "I have a cryptocurrency paper coming out" alteration. He doesn't know what happened.

Asks about an altered email to Dave Kleiman. Says he can't remember writing it. "Some person on the internet" found a backdating issue with the domain name. He says he doesn't know what happened. Exchange may have changed the email dating.

KPMG report now. Wright says he used to work in digital forensics – their methodology is unscientific, not replicable. Why is the report so long, he's asked. "When you have nothing, you put more."

Craig now repeats yesterday claims that KPMG having opened a file may have contaminated it by adding or changing metadata. "It's a huge problem."

Says can't conclude there is "manipulation", the analysis is not conclusive enough.

Says his approach to proving satoshiness is to use 80-100 people who know his history in court. "People are evidence".

Time is running out; Wright is asked by Manshaus to be precise.

9M documents from Wright in the Kleiman case. 2007-2017, about Wright and staff members.

Wright says he has never, ever manipulated or instructed others to manipulate docs.

Matonis' signing session. Wright says Matonis was satisfied. Then going through Andresen's session. Didn't want to give a signature file because Andresen might publish it. Says Andresen didn't verify the sig, only check the checksum.

Craig breaks up, cries as he talks about Bitcoin's early days and reminiscing with Andresen during the signing session. "It as really nice".

was*

Says McGregor was running his blog and made promises to other people on his behalf. In spite, he sabotaged the Sartre post because he didn't want to prove anything publicly.

Manshaus has a piece of paper with a list of Wright's patents. Asks about a system for tokenisation – this is NFTs, says Wright, goes into a rant about Vitalik, Manshaus stops him. Gets him to give a short description instead.

Wright says he would rather be private than known as Satoshi.

This concludes Manshaus' questioning. 10 minute break now, then the plaintiff will take over.

Haukaas now. Points out that Craig actually does have a criminal conviction (contempt of court). Wright says Wikipedia is wrong – it's not a crime in Australia.

Harsh PMs mentioned Hodlenaut. Haukaas shows pre-Hodlonaut harsh messages – Craig said he didn't remember. Oops.

Wright says ATO files were changed (by Gizmodo?). "None of those are what occurred". Says the intention was to give the impression that Dave Kleiman had a larger role.

"Are there any real documents somewhere?" asks Haukaas. Yes. Dave was never part of the Tulip Trust, says Wright. Haukaas shows an email from Dave Kleiman, Wright says it's manipulated.

Shows Satoshi calling Bitcoin a cryptocurrency. That was written by someone else, says Craig. Is shown an email from Craig to Dave Kleiman, says he's written part of it, but there are altered parts.

Haukaas quotes from an old case where Wright admits to writing the whole thing. Wright now denies it, saying he said "he wrote something close to it".

Shows email from Andresen before signing session where Andresen says he'll bring a USB stick so he can verify the signature on his own laptop. Wright remembers his, but didn't agree to it.

Wright says he doesn't have key access now, but he used to at some point. "I created the algorithm" (wtf). Now goes into ECDSA technical things. Raises his voice, waves his hands.

Wright says he can't legally decrypt the file with the private keys. Haukaas tries to ask if he *practically* could. Wright talks about company structure.

Wright said he never had keys, only an HMAC algorithm, "I hash it and I hash it", some sort of key derivation. "I don't think I understand", says Haukaas. Nobody does, Ørjan.

Wright goes deeper into corporate structure, which is how he is supposed to not have access to the keys. Access was further complicated in 2011 as trusts were set up until 2020 for tax purposes. Goes into ATO troubles, Haukaas interrupts him.

Haukaas goes on about Wright's practical access. Earlier witness statement says the trust is not a separate corporate structure. Wright disagrees, goes into blind trust, talks about its history in British law.

Wright said the trusts were to remove his control to protect his IP from ATO.

Shows letter from Dave Kleiman about Dave having set up something that removed Wright's access. Wright said he wrote it when he was terribly drunk – not Kleiman.

Haukaas shows Deed of Trust. Wright says it's unrelated and isn't signed by him. Says there's another document signed by corporate lawyers. Wright repeats that he's no longer a trustee, doesn't have access to all documents.

Is asked about current trust structure, who the trustees are. Nguyen has never been a trustee etc. Judge asks if the document we are looking at is forged, Wright gives an evasive answer.

Haukaas asked if Wright International can access the bitcoins. "No", says Wright, "this is where people go wrong" (a phrase he uses now for the second time today). Goes into Shamir Secret Sharing. Says the document does not show the correct key holders.

Haukaas asks what it would take to access the bitcoins. "I haven't even thought it through, because I don't need to". But you got keys in 2016? Yes. Then he had the algorithm that could calculate the private keys. Raises his voice.

In 2016 he got keys by "putting in a number of requests and getting people to sign off on them". Says he can't do that again because he "stomped on a hard drive that contained some of the slices" (??)

Haukaas said that he earlier has stated he received keys on a USB stick. No, says Wright, those were key slices. Later he destroyed a USB stick, but he disagrees. It's in evidence, but Haukaas is not sure where right now.

Wright confirms he destroyed his hard drive with a hammer. Stomped on one with his foot. Because "bitcoin is not encrypted". "Bitcoin acts within the law". Goes into rant about crime. Becomes emotional, raises his voice.

Rant goes on about lawr, emotional. And that's why he stomped on his private keys, he confirms to Haukaas.

The USB stick destruction citation has been found. It was a USB stick from Nguyen, destroyed with a hammer without witnesses. Wright blames his Norwegian lawyers for inaccuracies and translation mistakes.

Craig doesn't remember when it was he stomped on his private keys. He was not in a good place at the time, had just come out of hospital.

Raised-voice rant again, now about accounting. Everything is PUBLIC! Such as a court-order published to the blockchain.

"If you get a court order, it can happen", confirms Wright. Because there's no encryption, it's a ledger and ledgers can be changed by appending to the end.

"Is that part of the plan"? No, I don't care about the Satoshi keys. Patents are valuable, cares about them instead.

Thieves should not benefit from stolen property, says Wright. Wright said 1.1M bitcoin is a wrong figure, since it's from "people on the internet". "Signature means identity", he says. Charlie Lee could sign since he was known from before. Car keys analogy.

Haukaas says you need the private key to sign. No, says Wright, identity is proven by people. Control is not important. "But you did sign for Gavin and Matonis?" No, I used the private key. To keep [Wright's people] happy and shut them up.

What proves it, says Wright, is his time with Andresen, not the signing session. I guess the real proof is the friends he made along the way.

Did he store the signature after the signing sessions? Wright gives a long-winded answer. Did not keep the signature. Didn't want to "go down that path". "Identity is firewalled from the blockchain". Not going to "go against the system I created".

Sartre now. Haukaas demonstrates the manipulation. Wright says he's not saying the hash is about Sartre, but "sn7". "You're saying I've done this to fool this". "I did hash Sartre, I didn't hash it *here*". Goes into the "I'm not signing" narrative.

Defends his "I'm not going to make this simple" quote from Sartre. More "proof is people". "When you say that I can't code, I'm going to get people from large corporations …" Haukaas stops him, time is scarce.

"Rob [McGregor] started writing as me", he says. Some of his emails were sent when he was unconscious in hospital. "Nope, that's not me". "I had attempted suicide, I was in hospital"

An email from May 7 2016 to Gavin, however, is from him. Says the point of Sartre was to sabotage McGregor, because he had a deal going on with Google. "I hate Silicon Valley". Goes into social network algos. "It's evil!" Would kill himself before "giving himself to Google."

Handwritten "white paper draft" now. Haukaas shows how he wrote "BItcoin" in the older part of the text. Wright says that was one of the candidate names all along. Haukaas shows a list of candidate names, Bitcoin is not there.

Plaintiff's other lawyer, Myklebust, takes over. Asks how many followers he has on Twitter. Wright says don't know, doesn't run his account. Myklebust shows screenshot, 70k followers.

Myklebust quotes obscene tweets from him. Were you offended here, she asks. Wright said yes because of other messages from the same person. Goes into Satoshi's PGP key etc. Can't sign without identity. Says he overreacted in the screenshot.

Myklebust: you called Assange a rapist? Yes, he was charged, and Wright said he had spoken to the woman involved (??).

Is it OK for you to defame people, but not others to defame you? No, but Charlie Lee, Lopp, Spagni, various stuff they have done. Voice raises, hands fly.

Wright says he had an issue with the Lightning torch. Hodlonaut supposedly had defamation "on his profile". Something about DCG and tens of millions of people.

Says he didn't care if people thought he was Satoshi. Retraction from Hodlonaut would be enough, says Wright.

Judge asks Wright to help her understand why signing cryptographically is harder for him than what he's doing now.

Wright says it's harder to do because finding up to 100 people and getting them to witness is very time-consuming.

Judge clarifies. Wright says "as soon as I sign with a key, it's over". Wants people to look into all the 90-100 people. He refuses to give them the easy way out that doesn't build identity properly.

Just smiles, says "I understand". Manshaus asks if the BBC brought a camera. Yes, against the agreement. Not sure where that went.

Craig says he likes the court process here, better than abroad.

Court is adjourned! Judge asks Haukaas about the ongoing AV issues. Let's hope there'll be some solution by tomorrow.

Was supposed to read "judge smiles"

Ouch, meant to write he has never adored Satoshi.