Thread by @bitnorbert

Day 4 🧵

Good morning! Join for me for another fun day at the courthouse? We have 90 minutes to get there before court's back in session. #WeAreAllHodlonaut

Witness statements start today. We'll hear from Hodlonaut's witnesses for the first three sessions. Looking forward to this as they are all talented people.

Torbjørn Bull Jenssen is CEO of Arcane Crypto, a company with many offerings, but increasingly famous for the mining and trading related reports out of Arcane Research. Jenssen is also a media darling in all matters of cryptocurrency in Norway. A very talented speaker.

Svein Ølnes is a Bitcoin-focused researcher known for his popular University-level courses on Bitcoin and is frequently seen opining in Norwegian newspapers. He translated "The Little Bitcoin Book" to Norwegian. I most recently ran into him at BHB in Riga.

Johan Halseth works at Firi, a popular cryptocurrency exchange in Norway and Denmark. He came there from Lightning Labs where he worked on the LND implementation of Lightning Network for four years.

The final session will be the first of Wright's witnesses: Stefan Matthews. He was CEO of Ayre's TAAL until recently. He's a long time associate of Wrights, appearing to having conveniently witnessed whatever it is Wright needs a witness for at any time. #ProofIsMatthews

I'm doing this out of passion and personal interest, but I get many people asking how to give sats. Please donate to the OpenSats fund. But fine, if you want to pay for my coffee or Kvikk Lunsj, here's a thing you an scan. You guys are all awesome.

It looks like the AV issues are solved and that plaintiff will at last get to play their videos.

Hodlonaut showed up in a good mood, clearly pleased with how yesterday went. He said he's looking forward to today's proceedings.

Judge enters, smiles and wishes everyone GM. Says before witness statements plaintiff may show their videos.

Now playing a recording from the GQ Magazine interview. Courtois is heard arguing with Wright. "Show me or bullshit!" says Wright. "This will never happen again". "Fack off". "FACKING WALK" F-word galore. "OVER! FACK OFF!"

Wright is heard saying he doesn't care about being seen as Satoshi, just wants to research and go to conferences, can't do that anymore.

Now playing a clip from the Bitcoin conference appearance with Szabo."I've been involved with all this for a long time, I keep my head down"

Now a clip from Wright at a conference being asked about Sartre. "Why fake proof?" Wright sayd "none of your business" (applause) Says it's his money. Bitcoin is about "not answering to anyone". "I am here to kill off Satoshi". Appeals to markets rather than leaders.

Now the "I remember reading it … probably when I wrote it" slip-up.

The first witness enters – Bull Jenssen. Judge introduces herself and the setting to him. He writes down his personalia rather than saying it out loud. Jenssen takes the oath.

Plaintiff (Haukaas) asks the first round of questions. Asks about his background. Jenssen says he wrote a Master's degree on Bitcoin, and spent a lot of time following Bitcoin after that. Has given talks, statements to media, and CEO of Arcane Crypto since 2018.

Jenssen talks about his company. Says Bitcoin represents a "zero-to-one" innovation, no middle-man. Open system, free innovation. Bitcoin brought the missing piece of the open internet. Society beginning to see the consequences, but most things are ahead of us.

Is asked about Satoshi, gives the well-known story. Says the question of his identity is seen as fascinating, but open source and decentralisation makes it not important. Talks about speculation and people claiming to be Satoshi.

When did you first hear about Wright? 2015 "leaks". Remembers hearing of ATO troubles, and all the retractions of the initial media coverage. He hadn't concluded, but had doubts due to manipulated material.

Remembers hearing of Andresen signing sessions. Remembers people thinking we were about to see a public signature. Then the public post (Sartre), and how it was picked apart as a trick. After this, he thought the idea of Wright as Satoshi would be "very strange".

What was his impression of the community response? Says he remember wide skepticism and Andresen saying he might have been fooled. He says the general perception was the events had weakened Wright's credibility.

Asked about BSV, he says there is wide consensus about what Bitcoin is (BTC). Judge asks if "real Bitcoin" refers to BTC, Jenssen affirms. Talks about the block size war, BCH, then BSV. BSV is now "completely irrelevant", very few care.

Says BSV is built around the idea that Craig is Satoshi, parts of the environment is very cult-like. The changes BSV made shown to not be useful and have made BSV niche.

"For me, it's very difficult to believe Craig is Satoshi". Would expect signing or moving, which while not a complete proof would strengthen the thesis considerably. White paper describes an open system, while Wright changed license, uses lawsuits, very unlike Satoshi.

It's hard to ignore the constant stream of manipulated docs, broken promises etc, says Jenssen. This perception is widely shared in the field. Very few think he's Satoshi. Cites Vitalik.

Asked about social media. Says there's often "rough language", people speaking their minds ("right from the liver", as we say in Norwegian). Some people don't like this climate. True of social media in general, but cryptocurrency in particular.

Has he followed Wright on social media? Yes, on Twitter until he left it. Has read interviews, blog posts etc. Did he think Wright spoke like other cryptocurrency users? Not sure, he thought a lot of Craig's writing were "technobabble", "pseudo-philosophic".

Says there were increasing amounts of lawsuit threats, people being told to "watch themselves" etc.

Manshaus takes over questioning.

Manshaus asks if Arcane does only "Bitcoin BTC" or other cryptocurrencies. Jenssen says they have multiple, including BCH. Does not give financial advice, but planning to.

Does he agree with "Bitcoin and shitcoin"? Doesn't use that term. Some other projects may have a future.

Does he use Twitter a lot? No, mostly retweets. Is he part of the rough climate? No, but follows a lot of it. So it's possible to follow the debate without using rough language? Yes. Had he heard of Hodlonaut? Yes, especially after Lightning torch.

Hodlonaut "showed up in his feed". What does that mean? Jenssen explains. (Manshaus going for the "traction attack" now). Followed Hodlonaut after it "showed up". Has he seen the tweets at issue? Not sure which they are, hasn't used Twitter that much.

Does he thinks this current court case results from the lawsuit threats? He's not sure. Talks about the bounty on Hodlonaut and the following manhunt in Oslo. He said it was uncomfortable, wasn't sure what those people's intents were.

What would you do instead to serve someone? Jenssen says they could contact the Twitter user, and use non-public channels, not a bounty. Says there was a hostile time between camps, could attract people with bad intentions.

But what if you already had tried everything you suggested? Says you don't have a natural right to know who somebody is. If the content is illegal, report it and have it investigated by police. Follow legal practice, not vigilantism.

Manshaus shows some tweets calling Ver, Wright and Ayre names. "clearly mentally ill". "Wright is a fraud week" etc, tweets used in earlier days. Can he remember these from the time? No, not these in particular, but this mood. Says Bitcoindotcom sold BCH as "Bitcoin" to newbies.

Jenssen says Twitter promotes a certain "sharp" style. Is asked if he writes like in those tweets. No. Could he have retweeted such language? Probably not, isn't comfortable with the language style. Would prefer to be more moderate.

Could calling people names have consequences? Well, calling certain people a fraud had much support at the time. He could have done that, without it having an intended legal weight. Arcane frequently advises against scams. Wouldn't call people "pedo" and such.

What about "Wright is a fraud week", sending a single person certain messages each day? Jenssen says when things are emotional and team-based, these things tend to happen. Such language against a public person is more an attack on their role rather than their person.

If this was about a politician or a football star, would it be OK? Yes, look at the campaigns against Biden or Putin. Are there any limits? People have different views, that's why we have laws, says Jenssen.

Asks about Twitter's feed algorithm. Manshaus asks if he has any thoughts about using hashtags against a single person. Jenssen says the context makes it understandable. It's about exposing majority views.

Manshaus asks again if it could be possible to avoid bad language. Judge interrupts, says it's already been asked. Jenssen says it's of course possible.

Manshaus: do people in Arcane tweet like that? No, but some people use that tactic to attract followers, for example Hex. If someone at Arcane had tweeted like that, he would probably have a talk with them, about what the goal was.

Manshaus says no further questions. Judge asks Jenssen to describe to mood around Wright being Satoshi in 2019. He says the case fell apart in 2016, BCH split in 2017 increased conflict, BSV split caused more intense push of Wright's cause. Not due to Hodlonaut.

Says community had to fight misinformation from BSV. Judge thanks him. Anything else you want to say? Jenssen makes a closing statements about people being allowed to disagree.

Breaking for 10 minutes.

Halseth is the next witness. Judge introduces herself and explains about translations etc. Halseth takes the oath. Haukaas asks about his background. Has Master's degree in informatics. Worked as developer, talks about Lightning Labs.

Got into Bitcoin in 2015, followed it closely since. Professionally since 2017, worked full-time. Haukaas asks if he noticed the Wright announcements. Yes, he did. Didn't think much about it, early in his Bitcoin interest. Assumed Wired/Gizmodo had done their research.

When Wright came out publicly, "my alarm bells started ringing", very skeptical. As a technologist, he thought a technical person would never have tried to give evidence in such a way (private signings). Is asked about Electrum, describes it.

Says with Electrum the signature can be published, it's the private key you have to keep private. Could Electrum be manipulated? Yes, Electrum is built from source code, the person building it could change the code any way they want to. Such as triggering a "valid" signature.

What about Sartre? He read the blog post, clearly written in an obfuscating way. Haukaas shows the post again. Asks Halseth to describe a terminal window screenshot. It shows OpenSSL and a valid signature. Goes through the openssl command and output.

Another screenshot with a "sha256sum Sartre" command. Halseth explains file hashing. The hash is the same as on the previous screenshot. Next screenshot appears to show the contents of the "Sartre" file. Next screenshot shows contents of the file with the signature.

Then a screenshot appearing to show the signature file, and using it to verify the sn7.txt file.

What this appears to show, says Halseth, is that the private key's owner has signed the file.

Halseth says we know the signature is made by Satoshi and is from an early signature.

Says it's impossible that two different inputs have the same signature.

Haukaas shows a transcription of a BBC interview with Wright/Matonis. Wright explains how he is going to sign and give BBC's Rory a signature file.

Shows an email plaintiff received from Rory.

Haukaas says the contents of the USB stick BBC received has been sent to Halseth. Halseth says he has verified that the files are the same as on the Sartre blog. He says the actual content that was hashed was a blockchain transaction, not Sartre. Means fake.

What about the claim that Sartre was just a means to illustrate things, and not meant as actual proof? If so, says Halseth, the actual hashed data would have been included – this is missing and makes the post "useless in that sense".

No further questions. Manshaus takes over. Asks if he has invested in cryptocurrency – yes. Says he has Bitcoin and Ethereum mainly. Is he on Twitter? Yes. Mainly reads, rarely posts.

Judge says to Manshaus not to repeat the questions from previous witness.

Manshaus asks if he is familiar with the Hodlonaut account. Yes, from 2018 or 19. Doesn't remember first time. It was on Twitter. How? Tweets appear in the feed. Has he followed Hodlonaut? Yes. From when? He thinks 2018 or 19.

Was familiar with Lightning torch, did not participate. Is he familiar with "lightning node"? Doesn't know what that refers to. Is he familiar with the tweets in this case? Don't know what those tweets are.

How did he familiarise himself with Andresen's signing session? He read the blog post, remembers the commotion and the debunking.

What was false about Gavin's witness? He said later he might have been fooled.

Why did he say it's easy to change Electrum? Because Gavin was flown in for something that could have been done online, closed room, not his own wallet software. Makes the session "a farce".

How could Electrum have been changed in Gavin's case? Possible network/MitM attack.

Can server ops see download logs? Yes, including OS.

Does he know who Andresen is? Yes.

Andresen is pretty technical. Could you have fooled him? Maybe not now after 2016, but before yes

The Sartre text – what is the message of it? Halseth doesn't remember. Doesn't know who Sartre is.

No further questions.

Judge asks if the descriptions in the Sartre posts are correct. Written in a "strange language", but probably yes.

Judge asks how Wright *should* have signed. He should have published the input text, signature and the pubkey, that would have been enough. Would it have revealed the private key? No. Judge understands the pubkey/privkey correspondence.

Anything else you want to say to the court? He says his impression is that the Sartre post seems intended to confuse and obfuscate.

Halseth leaves the stand. Haukaas goes to fetch the next witness. Ølnes enters.

Judge gives the usual introduction, Ølnes writes down his personalia. States his profession as a researcher and educator. Takes the oath. Haukaas opens questioning.

Ølnes is wearing socks with bitcoin logos on them. Haukaas asks about his background. Got interested in Bitcoin and steered his carreer towards it. Is invested.

Describes bitcoin as decentralised, no middle-men, a basis for development of new services. Which sort, asks judge. He mentions LN and Fedimint.

Haukaas asks him to describe Satoshi. Says he doesn't know him, but read correspondence. Talks about cypherpunks, cryptowars.

Did he pay attention to the initial Wright coverage? Yes, but after the Dorian outing he lost a bit of interest. Wright was "yet another". When checking further, he thought it was as far from Satoshi as possible. "Pompous" communication style didn't check out.

An "obfuscating" way to present things, especially technological things. What is the general sense of Wright now? That he is not Satoshi, a view he shares. All the development in this case makes him more and more convinced he's not Satoshi. Manipulations, lies.

What could be the motivation for such a fraud? Maybe to gain attention, or economical motives. The people behind a cryptocurrency often stand to gain.

What about BTC vs BSV? He knows the story behind the split, block size war etc.

Judge asks him to explain the various parties' interests in the block size war. Ølnes explains big blocks for small fees vs. small blocks for better decentralisation – this was the main thing.

Haukaas asks if people behind a cryptocurrency is interested in making it centralised. Could be, says Ølnes, but centralisation will probably happen in any case. Bitcoin could develop in peace, not like that today.

Haukaas asks about the separation of powers in Bitcoin. Ølnes is in his element now; goes into miners, full nodes, developers. Puts it in the context of the block size war and SegWit. Hard vs soft forks. Explains how SegWit was ultimately activated.

Says the outcome was the clarification of the powers of the individual users of Bitcoin.

Judge asks about the "hard fork into Bitcoin Cash". This shows she tracks well IMO. Ølnes recounts the story, up to the BSV split.

Manshaus takes over now.

Has he invested in cryptocurrency? Yes. Only Bitcoin? No, also some ether. Do you mean Bitcoin BTC? I mean Bitcoin, which is BTC.

Have you heard about Lightning torch? Yes. When? As it started. That's when he first found Hodlonaut.

How did he find Hodlonaut specifically? Can't remember, the name came up. Maybe when Dorsey received the torch? Do you follow Dorsey? Yes. Was that how you found Hodlonaut? Can't remember.

Are you familiar with this case? Yes. What is it about? Hodlonaut has sued Wright

Have you called Wright a fraud? I don't think so.

Manshaus reads the now familiar tweets again. Can you remember having seen these? Can't remember, such things have circulated.

Would you have retweeted these? Probably not, I belong to the more moderate part of Twitter.

Again with the hashtag towards a single person. Any thoughts? Ølnes says such things are not unusual on Twitter.

Is there something about the totality of the tweets that make this particularly bad? Don't know, says Ølnes, repeats he tries to maintain a certain style.

Judge asked about his description of Wright's language as "pompous" – how was Satoshi's demeanor? Any examples? He recommends the white paper (I think?). Bitcoin's careful design does not match with the defendant's style.

Judge asks about the mood around the time of Hodlonaut's tweets. He's not sure, remembers Wright as aggressive, threatening lawsuits.

Anything else? Says Bitcoin has no leaders, must be defended by "foot soldiers" hard to defend against well-funded attackers.

Ølnes steps down.

Matthews enters. Judge addresses him in English, usual introductions. Says he has a number of positions, chairman at TAAL etc, chairman of "BItcoin Association for BSV". Known Wright since 2007. Takes the oath (aka affirmation).

Wright's attorney Helle asks the questions. Asks for a summary of his education. Lists his various degrees. He's chairman of the board of the company that owns nChain.

Talks about being CIO at Centrebet (sp?), met Wright through BDO.

Describes Wright as uniquely talented, took an interest in "educating people", not like a typical auditor.

What about his IT skills? Wright "had an enormous number of credentials in his area". "Second to none". "Never seen anyone with that number of certifications".

Helle says that's formalities, what about his actual skills? Very talented. Interpersonal skills? Matthews giggles, "they were a little different". Tells a story about Wright budging into meetings.

Did Wright do other things or Centrebet? Yes, advising in technical areas. Wright as "instrumental".

Did you have discussions with him? Yes. In 2007 Wright talked about many ideas around digital currencies. Spoke a lot about immutable ledgers, many many times.

Immutable ledgers were central to Centrebet.

Lunch break is approaching. Helle says due to being ahead of schedule, they want Robert Jenkins to witness later today. Judge agrees.

45 minute lunch break now.

You guys paid for this, thank you so much! I feel like a right Dorian.

Continuing with Matthews. After Wright left BDO in 2008, he joined Centrebet as an advisor, he says.

When did they discuss p2p transactions etc? In 4th quarter of 2007, more detailed during 2008. Conversations stopped in September 2008, he claims.

Says Wright came to him one day with a white paper. Came to identify it as a Bitcoin white paper draft. Did not have a name on it, including not Satoshi.

Wright later told him it had been the second-to-last version before release.

He read the front page, the section headings, speed-read the content, and "I've got to say, there was nothing there I hadn't already discussed with Craig".

Helle asks about "any magical moments". Matthews said he took an interest in it as an invention, but didn't get involved.

Did Wright suggest that Centrebet should get involved? Yes, he asked in 2008 if they wanted involvement. Matthews said he declined the offer, because they were looking to get acquired and didn't think Wright's project was going anywhere.

In 2009, Wright had left BDO, were in Matthews' meetings. He said Wright asked for money. "Just give me 500 dollars and I'll give you 50K bitcoin". Rejected the offer.

Should you have accepted the offer? Said he didn't understand at the time. Couldn't handle private keys.

Matthews said Centrebet was sold, and he resigned and relocated to the UK in 2009.

After moving to the Philippines in 2012, Wright called him there. Asked for meeting. Met in Sidney in 2015. "At that time he was Craig" Met for 90 minutes. Not much talk about Bitcoin then.

He remembered the "Bitcoin" name due to the alleged white paper draft etc. Happened upon a Bitcoin documentary, was surprised. Thought the meeting didn't have a "reason".

April 2015, Wright contacted him again for advise. Met in Aus with 2 guys from DeMorgan Group.

They had ineresting debate about blockchain projects at DeMorgan. Matthews realised DeMorgan had issues with applications/grants – went back to his room to do research online. Started reading Bitcoin history, lots on Satoshi and the white paper.

"I*m looking at something that is almost ghost-like", he said he thought. Later in the hotel restaurant, he asked Wright "who is Satoshi Nakamoto"? Wright is supposed to have replied "you already know the answer", looking straight at him.

Matthews said he had read the white paper before. Wright replied that no, he hadn't – that was two iterations before public release. That's how Wright supposedly thinks.

What about DeMorgan's troubles? They talked about the structure, intent of group structure etc.

Talked about Australian grant schemes, tax rebates, applications in process that caused audits due to their size. That's when troubles started. Didn't discuss solutions, Wright said he came to Matthews because he was most likely to understand.

Wright said he didn't trust the process ATO suggested, feared he would lose control of his IP. Wright said he only wanted to do research. "I have things in my head that are all interrelated" – he couldn't do that with business responsibilities.

Matthew said he needed someone to talk to someone about all this, so he contacted Calvin Ayre, a friend on his. "You're gonna need to be seated", he told Ayre. Make this a bit shorter, interrupts Helle. They made plans to talk to Wright.

They met in Vancouver the following week, says Matthews. Ayre and Matthews concluded they should contact Rob McGregor. His company nCrypt had worked with similar tech to Bitcoin. McGregor took no initial interest, but did after a few weeks.

McGregor contacted Matthews in June 2015 about collaborating. Andrew Summers was under pressure to get money to pay lawfirm Clayton Woods. Something about moving IP out of DeMorgan and into nCrypt. It's a bit hard for me to follow all this.

He's discussing a Summary of Terms (termsheet) document, signed in Aus. Something about an "Arms length transactions" rule.

What about the life story rights? Came up only briefly, referenced in termsheets.

Judge asks why he worked two similar termsheets. Baker McKenzie recommended this, one superseded by the other and referenced to avoid confusion (failed there, bro).

Says the deal was that Wright and family would relocate to UK. Immediately started preparing.

Why UK? Because London was best suited for their planned research facility and human capital – talent in that place.

Helle asks about Gizmodo/Wired. Wright and Matthews were both in Sidney, Wright as distraught and showed Matthews articles on his phone. Wright asked how to counter/stop it. Matthews assured Wright that he had nothing to do with the "outing".

He showed him "messages" on the phone, not articles, sorry. This was supposed to have happened before the press coverage went public.

Why was O'Hagan retained to write Wright's life story? Wasn't initially, it was to document the growth of nChain. It was supposed to grow to a very significant company, best to document things as they occur. Matthews had no role in it, McGregor handled in personally.

O'Hagan was retained without proper NDAs and other contracts in place, says Matthews.

When the stories went public, the federal police showed up at the office with a search warrant within an hour, claims McGregor.

Did Wright flee? No, plans were already laid to move to UK.

Lawyers advised him not to change any plans, Wright was going to travel to London in a few days anyway, and he did.

Did the outing change priorities? Yes, materially. From "building" to dealing with Satoshi promotion.

This was McGregor's initiative. Wright was not happy and Matthews said he spent most of his time mediating between the two.

Signing sessions: convinced Wright to do a single one. Matthews suggested Matonis, who agreed.

Matonis recommended Andresen, to accommodate the "constant pressure" for Wright to do a public signing. Matthews organised both sessions. Andresen was reluctant due to being unsure he was coming for "genuine reasons".

Matonis told Matthews he was not surprised, "had the strangest feeling he had been talking to Satoshi Nakamoto" before. Matonis signed an NDA. Nothing would leave the room. Jon could choose any 3 from the first 10-11 blocks, and Wright would use that key. 1, 9 and maybe 3, 7, 5.

Does Matonis retain his conclusion from 2016? They haven't spoken since then until 2 months ago. Had breakfast, spoke about signing. Matonis said "Stefan, you'll notice I have never recanted what I said, I meant what I posted and I stand by it today". Weeks ago.

Andresen's signing session: they spent 60-90 minutes talking about Bitcoin concepts, algos, designs. Andresen wanted to use his own laptop, Wright refused. This story has been told before. Had breakfast with Andresen next morning.

McGregor wanted public signings, Wright refused, Matthews intermediated. Lots of pressure from McGregor.

Matthews involved in their media coverage of Wright. Fell apart in 2016. "Coins didn't get moved" The "I'm sorry post" was made by McGregor in the presence of Matthews.

McGregor told Matthews to fire everyone and close down nChain. He refused. McGregor wanted to exit his investment and the business. Matthews found alternative funding. McGregor's exit was formally later in 2016, but he didn't get involved after suggesting the shutdown.

McGregor says has never had doubts that Wright is Satoshi. Helle has no further questions. Haukaas now takes over.

The supposed 2008 copy of the white paper, does he still have it? No. Has no idea where it went. Was kept on a USB stick.

Any other correspondence re white paper? No, nothing. Did you talk about it with others? No. So no documents available? No.

You were offered 50k bitcoin in 2009. Was that a good or bad offer? Neither, I wasn't interested.

Re termsheets. Were you aware that the lawyers withdrew? There were a lot of meetings, Summers was in a difficult position.

The tipping point for McGregor: finding DeMorgan research from 2006 concerning blockchain …

Haukaas asks about the price DeMorgan's IP was sold at. Matthews explains, gives no specific figures. Lots of confusing corporate speech I can't follow.

Did you discuss Sartre with Wright? Not before publishing, only talked about consequences after. McGregor was editing it, he was concerned that Wright didn't respond to his emails. Don't know which edits were made.

Haukaas shows a Bitcoin white paper with Wright's name on it. Matthews said this is not the version he saw, he must have seen an earlier version. Another copy is brought about, also with Wright's name on it, but here it's called "TimeCoin", not Bitcoin.

Matthews said they got written permission from trustees to use keys for signing sessions. Got key slices in envelopes hours before the sessions. Haukaas shows such a letter from Nguyen, Matthews said this was not one of them.

He doesn't remember seeing the Nguyen email from April 2016.

Did you discuss using the keys to sign publicly after Sartre? Matthews pauses. Haukaas shows an email from him to Andresen May 2016 called "Additional Proof". He doesn't remember it at all.

He's aware that Andresen was criticised after Sartre. Did Wright explain why he didn't want to sign publicly? Wright never wanted to, he has "strong views around identity".

Andresen session was "part of the proof of identity", not full proof.

Did he discuss Wright's key stomping with him? No, had other things on his mind. Do you think it's a bit reckless to destroy such value? I wish a lot of things had played out differently, I can't change that.

March 2019: Were you involved in discussing pursuing people calling Wright a fraud? Hesitates, says he's aware of it. Can't recall being involved. Was involved in "peripheral discussion", but didn't "develop strategy". Assumes the goal was to cease the "bombardment".

It's not my case, he says, but he may have been involved in the information flow without making decisions.

Myklebust takes over. Who downloaded Electrum? Andresen. Shows Andresen deposition. Andresen states Wright downloaded the software.

Matthews' recollection is that it was Andresen who downloaded. How long did the setup and signing process take? Quite a long time. Setup of new laptop, WiFi access etc.

Myklebust shows Andresen saying Craig downloaded and installed, after many hours he was convined of the sig".

Who chose Electrum? Gavin, I think. Myklebust shows Andresen saying Wright chose Electrum. Quite possible, says Matthews. Did you witness everything? Like a hawk.

Andresen quoted saying it's possible they did not use the hotel WiFi, doesn't recall if https was used.

Myklebust quotes the deposition, saying that Andresen did not witness the process.

Haukaas interrupts, says there's an issue with "the form". Missing context or something. Questioning resumes.

I'm sorry, Manshaus interrupted, not Haukaas.

Helle says the witness is being confronted with something a different witness has stated. Suggests if there is a point, it can be made later without going through the current witness.

"You have lost both me and the witness", says judge to Myklebust, about what the questioning.

Myklebust asks Matthews if he still thinks Andresen is an important source, given quotes in the deposition that he can't recollect certain details. No, but Matthews has seen things himself.

Myklebust has no further questions.

Judge asks if it is of any importance to Matthews' company whether Wright can prove he's Satoshi. Not as we sit here today, since nChain is growing. Wright has no management role, "injects ideas into the business". Defers to others on whether BSV will go up in value.

Judge: so you are not sure if Wright being Satoshi is relevant for BSV? Difficult to quantify.

Did Matonis' wife tell Matthews about her husband's "I think I spoke with Satoshi" before or after [something I missed]? It was after. (I missed a beat here)

Haukaas asks about ATO allegations. It didn't affect their view on the value of the IP.

Judge: anything to add? No.

Breaking for 15 minutes now (at last). Jenkins after the break.

Robert Jenkins enters. Introductions in English. He's an IT consultant. States no affiliation with the parties. Takes the affirmation (which I guess is different from an oath).

Helle asks him to describe his educational background, which he does. Worked for Vodafone in 1997. During that time they retained DeMorgan for their firewall experience. At that time, in 1999, he first met Wright.

"I've never seen a better implementation", he says of Wright's work for them. "All the layers involved". Second-to-none physical security. Leading edge at the time.

Jenkins had visited DeMorgan. Got training from Wright and his team.

The initial sensation of visiting DeMorgan was "a wall of heat", due to a lot of servers etc. "Stuck in my mind".

Jenkins left Vodafone to develop apps, and "the very first IP telephony". Stayed in touch with Wright, turned into a friendship.

Did you discuss alternative payments? Discussions were intellectual, challenged everything they were working on, including networking.

Did you take an interest in eGold? Yes (giggles). Gives an oddly specific timeline, says it's because he has money tied up there.

Did eGold interest Wright? More of a passing note, discussions were more focused on telecom and networks.

He left to work at Commonwealth Bank. Could go 18-24 months between seeing Wright, except encounters at conferences etc.

Says Wright discussed money with him, introduced him to the term "fiat currency". Jenkins explains fiat vs gold.

Later discussed transactions without intermediaries. Has learned to stop and consider why things are as they are. Pausing can engender creativity.

Jenkins said he became an "enterprise architect". Involved a need to "artificially predict the future".

Made Wright aware of "OPERA" (Operation Performance and Risk Measurement). He worked with distributed grid computing. Helped pioneer it.

This was in the mid-naughties. He left the bank in 2008. Joined a company to develop a system for the transfer of home ownership, still in use today. Still had contact with Wright. Talked about replacing the financial system with technology, distributed ledger, early 2008.

Was the word "Bitcoin" mentioned at that time? Absolutely not. What is called blockchain today was discussed. He asked Wright if this is anything like BitTorrent, which also distributes one dataset to many sources, and Wright disagreed. This is the same ledger in many places.

Did Wright ever share a white paper on this with you? No. He said "you may get something in the post", but he didn't.

Are you today surprised that he didn't share a white paper with you? No. They scribbled on napkins, but Wright always took them with him.

When did you first hear about Bitcoin? Gives round-about answer, finally says first half of 2011.

Did he try to persuade you to invest or mine? I'm not a wealthy person. Investing in a digital currency isn't going to put food on the table, he thought. Couldn't afford.

Did you still have contact with him around the "outings"? Wright had cancelled their catch-up, saw news on Channel 7.

What was your reaction to the "outing"? Gave me cause to reflect, hindsight is a wonderful thing. It appeared to have evolved over many years.

Is it feasible that Craig could be Satoshi, Jenkins asks himself retorically, and answers yes. No further questions.

Haukaas asks about DeMorgan's stock exchange firewall timeline. Jenkins confirms the year. Haukaas shows Wright's Wikipedia page. There are two DeMorgans?

Manshaus objects to usage of Wikipedia. Judge says she knows how Wikipedia works and that this is a controversial article, but the contents may still be accurate.

Haukaas is not going to question this witness any further, I guess? Jenkins thanks the judge for the opportunity.

This concludes the day. First time we finish early, half an hour ahead of schedule. Thanks for following, I'll post some reflections this evening.