Thread by @bitnorbert

Day 5 🧵

It's KPMG day, rise and shine! In 90 minutes, court will be back in session. #WeAreAllHodlonaut

We'll hear from four more of Wright's witnesses (yes, he brought like 10 of them in total, #WitnessesAreProof). There is Bridges, Sinclair, Yousuf (don't have their full names – do you?) and Max Lynam. This will take the first half of the day.

Second half is all for KPMG and their report where they found a number of manipulations among the filed document evidence. They are the foremost experts in digital forensics, so this should be fun! I expects lots of the usual sloppiness.

The way the defence tried to discredit the report as if KPMG were complete amateur beginners indicates they might be slightly panicky here. I hope Manshaus will cross-examine them – I enjoyed his arrogant style when he tried to discredit the report.

A reminder that I'm not the only live-tweeter! @SpecificMills and @kristiandoble are with me in the courtroom, and you do *not* want to miss the legendary @wizsecurity's sharp takes.

If you want to pay for my coffee and lutefisk, you're welcome to tip me some sats. If you already have, please donate to the OpenSats Legal Defense Fund.

Room is slightly less full than yesterday. Matthews is in the audience. Two minutes before session, the room falls silent in anticipation of judge's entry.

Judge enters, says Oslo District Court has received multiple messages from people not present. Reminds the parties that these messages from the internet will not be read or considered. Assures the room that there is no danger that she will be influenced by this.

Shoaib Yousuf is the first witness. He's on videolink. We can hear his voice, but only see his face on the screens in the back. Judge gives usual introductions. Makes the affirmation.

Helle questions. Asks for a brief overview of his education. Master's of information/cyber security etc, 17 years work experience. Is in Dubai.

When did you first meet Wright? He took a court in 2006, Wright was a classmate, and lecturer in another subject.

What was Wright like? Yousuf was impressed, Wright had "quite a few degrees", "over 70 certifications in cyber security", "spending so much time in research", started using Wright as his mentor. Visited Wright on his farm, surprised by unusual setup with satellite internet.

Wright had over 500 books. Not his expectations of a farm.

Describe you discussions with Wright? Flaws in cybersecurity in society/industry. Wright had "deep knowledge in cyber security", had deep discussions on this, religion etc.

Did you discuss electronic payments? Absolutely, in 2007, discussed what the future should be. Wright highlighted payment cards not being designed for "the future of the digital world". Need a standard that can be used globally, and can scale digital payments.

Did Wright have any suggestions for making alternative systems secure and reliable? Yes, he thought we would spend time decentralising systems, and he wanted to standardise global payment systems, should have one digital currency.

Did you receive anything in writing? We were good friends, in 2007 onward he sent me links, articles, papers randomly to ask his opinion.

Have you ever received or read the Bitcoin white paper? I don't recall, he might have shared something.

Did you start a business together? Yes, I was fascinated with his work. Wright left BDO, they launched a business.

How long did the cooperation last? A few years, but parted ways after 10 months. Went to Malaysia. Was in touch with Wright, visited Wright in 2012.

What was the office like then? He was astonished, large top-floor office, many people, "huge setup".

What was the area Wright worked in? "Coin" (sp?), different lines of business.

Your take on "outings"? Learned through news, was not surprised. Had exactly these discussions.

Yousuf expected Wright to prefer being anonymous, thought the coverage was correct.

No further questions. Haukaas takes over.

Asks about Coin and earlier name. Brings up a document. Audience/parties can't see them. Judge fixes.

Coin was founded as Strasan. Yousuf said he left because he was running out of money in 2013. Haukaas shows the doc describes a project. Yousuf is not directly familiar with it, with Wright mentioned it. Don't know anything about it, but was director of the company, with Wright.

Project describes "scriptable money". Wright had told him he was setting up "Coin or Bitcoin infrastructure" with a supercomputer. ATO is seen saying they could find no activity on the project. Yousuf not familiar with it.

Document says Yousuf was involved in project. Says he was not "directly involved", had discussed with Wright about leaving the company. Yousuf says he remembers the board meeting in question, but was not directly involved.

"You were director but did not know anything, is that fair to say?" "No, not fair to say"

No further questions. Judge asks if he has anything to add, Yousuf says no. He's excused. "Thank you, your honor".

I noticed Greg Maxwell is on the video conference as well, probably as audience.

Next witness is Neville Edward Sinclair, also on videolink. Says he's a retired partner of a firm, missed the name. Makes the information.

Helle asks if he's a registered accountant. Yes, was partner of an audit firm, worked with credit unions. Was a colleague of Wright's at BDO. Met Wright first probably in 2006. He was in charge of signing off on financial statements.

What was Wright's role? Senior manager in IT.

How would you describe his skills? Extraordinary tech skills, understood workings of computer systems, understood what would be useful for clients, evaluate solutions. High level. Well-versed in giving details used to improve systems

How about personal skills? Very direct, sometimes caused friction. Ultimately a benefit.

What areas did Wright work in? Data security in payment industry, payment cards. Identify potential threats.

Did you discuss alternative to current systems? He expressed ideas privately, at work he was interested in improving logging and how the data was held. Can remember him drawing diagrams of how security can be improved, like a blockchain.

Wright left BDO in 2008, did you stay in touch? Not personally, but he contacted him and had informal interactions in 2009 due to overlapping work.

Did Wright propose a cooperation with BDO on his projects? Yes, he asked about any opportunities. (Missed something here)

Did Wright discuss Bitcoin? Yes in 2011, gave him a physical coin, Bitcoin symbol on it, to "illustrate some of his work".

Your take on the "outings"? Thought there was a high probability that he could have created Bitcoin. Talks about Wright's "high degree of understanding".

Is there any consensus on this? At a conference in 2017, an article on Wright being Satoshi was mentioned, and it turned out that quite a few people he had worked with (who were there?) believed him. Was some sort of blockchain conference:

No further questions. Haukaas as well.

Sinclair says he has nothing to add. Adds that he ranks Wright highly as a Satoshi candidate (I think).

Next witness is also on videolink, but has some technical issues atm.

The room has fallen silent as we are hoping the witness' tech issues are being resolved. Helle suggests a 5 minute pause. Now we can hear the witness, David Graham Bridges.

He's CIO of Qudos Bank in Sidney.

Bridges makes the affirmation.

Helle asks Bridges about his education. Various management qualifications, IT related courses, JavaScript, HTML etc.

How long with Qudos? 15 years. Qudos is a mutual/community bank, credit union, 100k customers.

When did you first meet Wright? 2007, as they enganged BDO for security work, pentesting etc.

Areas of cooperation? Security audit of the bank, later also on their third-parties.

Describe his skills? Very gifted, "clever chap". "Operates on another level".

Says difficult to be mislead by other parties when Wright was present for them.

Describes Wright's methods. Looking for tell-tale signs, evidence of compromise. "Very strong on keeping logs and tracking everything"

Was logging an interest for Wright? Yes, was big part. He implemented centralised logging, would detect unauthorised changes.

Are you describing blockchain tech? It had the characteristics, can't say if he was certain of it at the time. Some similarity, not an expert.

Did you discuss alternatives to traditional banking? Yes, Wright pitched them a banking/payment system that would take out the middle-man and allow cheap transactions between banking institutions. Around 2008-09. Bank had a lot of interest, Swift can be expensive.

Did he discuss how bank customers would execute such transactions? Audio interruptions from another room, judge has a 😬 look and tries to fix it.

There's a hot mic in another room that needs to be muted. Judge is making multiple phone calls. We are waiting.

Fixed, judge apologises. Helle repeats the question. The system "had this genesis block", would be alerted if something was changed. Can't explain it technically, something about "hashing of the block". Didn't need middle-man, very appealing to the bank.

His bank didn't have the capital required to r&d this.

Wright left BDO in 2008. Did you stay in touch? Yes, "we" stayed in contact with Craig, hired Wright's Information Defence company.

Did you visit Wright's home? Yes, he and a colleague. Wright had racks of servers, "quite impressive, what's this guy up to?"

Did you discuss the word "Bitcoin" with Wright? Yes, after the pizza payment. Says Wright demonstrated Bitcoin for him at that time, had "digital wallet"

What was the price of a pizza at that time? Witness mishear and describes the price of Bitcoin instead, says he never bought any.

Says Wright invited him to work on a "bitcoin bank", turned it down, was skeptical about funding and enjoyed his secure job as he had small children etc.

Your take on "outings"? Remembers thinking "this all makes sense". If anyone's Satoshi it's "this fella".

Said Wright was driving a "Model Genesis" car, convertible, with a smile on is face.

Had you heard about Satoshi from Wrigt? Not sure, he's not a "big Bitcoin person", wasn't that interested.

Haukaas takes over. What was the name, in relation to the pizza payment? Seems like a misunderstanding.

When did he discuss bitcoin bank? Came in the office for a meeting uninvited to pitch the bank. But when? 2013.

No further questions. Anything you'd like to add? Remembers Wright and a lawyer discussing at a bbq, remembers thinking Wright is very smart, "all the boxes ticks off", "this makes a lot of sense". "When the news broke I was like yeah, without a doubt".

He's excused. We break.

Maxwell Lynam takes the stand. He works in IT. Wright is his cousin. Judge says the family relation means he's not obliged to witness, but since he does, he must make the affirmation. He does.

Helle asks what kind of family he was born into. Lynam says it's a family of military and civil service, and technology. They try to protect democracy and people who can't help themselves. His grandfather started with tech, talks about code breaking etc.

What about technology? Was handed down through generations. Says Wright didn't have a father figure, goes into family history.

What were your and Wright's hobbies? Did normal kid stuff, "naughty young boys", used "computers before they were really computers", c64, tape drives

Did you code as kids? Yes, from age 11, copied code from paper etc.

Did you do hacking? That came later, after the internet became available. DoS attacks etc. Code wars against other kids.

What did you do later? Education, army officer, military career.

What did you do in the military? Signals corpse, signals intelligence.

How much contact with Wright in 90s and early 00s? Mostly over internet. Got into ecommerce later. Goes into Wright's career, unprompted.

What line of business were you in after military? Had bought a farm with his parents, built a website, grew quickly, started import/export of cut flowers.

So you were early into ecommerce? Yes, before there were even databases available on the internet.

Did Wright share any ideas with you in writing? Yes, chatted. "Bursts of conversation", months between. Still chat and share things electronically. Wright was looking for coders for his projects, shared concepts, ideas, theories.

Did he share the Bitcoin white paper with you? Can't remember Bitcoin, it wasn't a thing back then. But what is now referred to as Bitcoin white paper, there were docs shared about tokenisation, validate transactions, "iteration after iteration". Went "right into the white paper"

Lived close to his grandfather.

Did you interact with your father re the computers in his house? Yes, I was the expert on the hardware. Farm had computer-controlled greenhouses.

Did Wright ask any favours? Yes, late 2008 Craig wanted him to test some code on their computers.

Lynam retells the story about the XPS computer that ran hot. Upgraded it, put in UPS etc. Got it running.

For how long? Went on until we left the farm. Had to wind up the flower business, due to financial crisis.

What were you actually doing with the computer? Just running what Wright wanted.

But what was your understanding? Always playing around and testing, help each other out. Didn't know that it was something that was going to be worth something.

Did you actually mine Bitcoin? Yes, the term mining was still foreign to us, but that's what it was doing.

When did you learn this was what you were doing? After we left the farm in 2011. Had dinner with Wright, who asked if they still had the computer. No, binned it.

Wright said "you should have kept it, it could be worth money". "The program you were running was mining Bitcoin the whole time". Wright had explained mining then. "If Bitcoin goes to $800, the stuff that he had would make him a billionaire".

Did Craig actually calculate how much you had mined? Yes, people like Craig have brains like computers. About 6500 bitcoins. Still wasn't worth much, so they didn't try to find the computer in the landfill.

Your take on "outings"? We'd always known Wright was the "chief engineer" and that he worked on "blockchain technology", they had "known" Wright was "behind all of it". "Satoshi" didn't mean much to him, just a moniker. "He's still Craig". Nyms are normal in the tech community.

Haukaas takes over. Asks if he has read the white paper. No. You have no idea what it would look like? "Apart from the heading …?"

Confirms the computer went to a landfill. Dinner in 2013. You had known for years about Wright, did that refer to 2013? No, vaguely about talks etc

"No, we knew for years that Craig was the creator of Bitcoin and blockchain". No further questions.

Anything to add? No, thank you your honor.

Ami Klin now, the autism expert. Klin takes the stand.

Says he's a clinic psychologist, scientist etc. He wrote a report for the Miami case. Judge informs Klin about his duties as an expert witness. Klin makes the affirmation.

Manshaus asks about his background. Goes into his autism research, 30 years of experience in clinical services and science.

You have diagnosed Wright. How was this done? It took a week in April 2020, a series of standard procedures for Autism Spectrum Disorder.

What is autism? A development disorder of genetic origins. Challenges in social interaction, all-absorbing interests over time. Autists have a diminished sense of others, some have high intellect, can compensate, but have challenges.

Are there different types? It's a spectrum, from disabled to intellectually gifted.

Where is Wright on the spectrum? Wright has superiour intellect in some areas, formal knowledge, history in general, literature, philosophy, algebra. Above the 99 percentile.

But in some areas he has challenges, especially social. Challenges in areas that look very trivial to others. They get blamed because people do not understand.

Judge: examples? Autists can be straight-forward, will call people "fat".

Manshaus: American court vs. this trial? This feels like a relaxed courtroom. Wright has a rigid way of seeing the world, under stress this exacerbates, becomes more rigid. The current environment would be better suited to solicit information from him.

Manhaus shows a Donald Lynam deposition. Quotes about being able to talk to Wright for hours about cryptology etc. Did you have any contact with this side of the family? Yes, to map family history for the autism diagnosis. Typically more than one individual with autism in family.

Says Wright was a lot like his grandfather. Such individuals prefer the company of each other, and this was the case for Wright and grandfather.

Could the diagnosis be a benefit for coding, cryptography etc? Yes, no distracting thoughts. "World of things", not people, emotions.

Comments on Wright called a fraud and a scammer and mentally ill? Wright alienating people because "odd interests", father issues, felt inadequate. Could not understand the world around him, focused on things he could.

So his history of being called names, is part of his being. Somebody doing that now would trigger the same feelings he had in his childhood and adolescence.

Manshaus shows a blog post about "Autism & Narcissism –  connections & differences". Not peer-reviewed, "someone posted this on the internet", says Klin. Indicates the author doesn't have the right background.

Have you checked the references? One of them about "do I have aspergers" is from HuffPost. Klin says it's like "Dear Abbey". Says other references are added disingenuously. DIdn't find support in PubMed.

Manshaus clarifies for the judge that this is more "things from the internet".

Klin says autism is completely different from aspergers, but similar symptoms on the surface. Autism doesn't exclude additional diagnosis, but apparently rarely aspergers.

He's saying autism and narcissistic personality disorder has nothing to do with each other. Narcissists can be charming, but autists find other people challenging.

Haukaas now: would I be able to tell an autist from a narcissist? Klin gives roundabout answer.

Wright has a history of being made fun of – were you just told this? Got this from interviews.

So you base it on what you are told. Yes, did not observe him as a child.

You said he's in the 99% percentile? Yes, I didn't test his IQ, but watched his video depositions, he sounded like someone with superior intellectual skills. 3 hours direct interaction with him.

Based on that you can say top 1%? Wright shared "prodigious" amounts of information.

You said people with autism are incapable of manipulating others. Shows report saying he's incapable of manipulation. Is this your belief? I'm not making a statement of fact or that he can't, I'm conveying his style of interaction.

Manipulation requires reading cues, Wright thinks more about matters, things. Based on his interaction with Wright.

Wright is "desperately naive", "impossibly pedantic", his own family make fun of him for this (I think he said).

The report is called a "consultation"? Yes, because not in his office. Was an expert witness report, has no otherwise relationship. Report was only to mention questions for the Kleiman trial, but clinical methods were standard.

The report has been used against McCormack as well. Shows judgment from that trial, saying "straightforwardly false in almost every material respect". Klin says he's not familiar with this. Klin raises his voice slightly.

Judge asks if he was the first to diagnose Wright. He thinks so. That's not unusual for high-intellect individuals. Wright grew up when autism was almost unknown.

Judge: you haven't read any conclusions regarding autism and Wright before the diagnosis? No.

Judge: was Wright surprised by diagnosis? No, he seems to have been aware of it.

Anything else? No, thank you for your kind behaviour, better than in Florida. Judge: "On behalf of the Norwegian court system, thank you" (laughter)

We now break for lunch ☕️ Back in 40 minutes.

Back. Two men from KPMG would like to witness together. Bjørn Krogh (?), Emil Vatne Bjørnstad (?? hard to hear). Both make the affirmation.

Haukaas begins. He asks them to present the report.

KPMG man says they'll present a selection of documents. White papers, word documents etc. Judge brings up report. KPMG man introduces the report and their methods.

They have analysed content, meta-data, formatting. They have found inconsistencies in meta-data, missing meta-data, fonts that were published after the document dating.

Some source code indicates creation or modification after the public publication – likely changed to appear to be older than they are.

Have made no consideration of whether the defendant is Satoshi, only looked at the material.

Describes their methods to secure the data against contamination, they compare hashes using MD5, used forensic tools as well as the apps that created the file. Opening files could change it – so they have done parallel analysis in forensic tools (Encase, Relativity).

They distinguish between meta-data from the PC where the file was created (file system timestamps), which can change at copy-time, and the most important for them which is meta-data generated by the apps that generated the file, like Word or OpenOffice.

Meta-data timestamps come from the computer's clock. If the clock is off, the meta-data will be wrong. Explains time zones. Meta-data can be edited, but this is rarely done without intent. Mostly to remove all meta-data.

Emil from KPMG takes over. Says they've looked at the contents of files too, in addition to meta-data. This includes fonts, paper size, margins, formatting discrepancies. For PDF they look at fonts, often embedded and dated. Various PDF substandard dating etc.

Refers to the report - they have 3 files as "reference files": bitcoin.pdf, SSRN doc by Wright, bitcoin-draft.pdf, shared by Satoshi November 1, 2008.

Presents bitcoin.pdf meta-data. Written in Open Office, PDF 1.4 from 2001. Little more, but what's there is consistent.

bitcoin.pdf has Letter paper type, 7 different fonts. Fonts have copyrights from before the document was published. Shows how the font is embedded, says it's consistent.

SSRN doc: Same time, different day. Different time zone. Made with OpenOffice 2.4, from August 2008, after the file's XMP metadata.

Judge asks about FTK and XMP to confirm they are from the apps and not the file system.

Content analysis of the SSRN doc: Same font size as bitcoin.pdf, but has 16 built-in fonts. 7 of them are same as bitcoin.pdf. 8 fonts have different font coding than the original fonts, only used in later Windows versions. Some fonts are from 2015 and 2017.

In some parts, the text is different than bitcoin.pdf, indicating edited PDF and not export from Open Office, and meta-data edits to make it appear older.

The third file has similar discrepancies, including the font issues. Judge asks to clarify her understanding.

Says they conclude the files have been made from bitcoin.pdf and made to appear older than they are.

Helle breaks in asking to confirm that the interpreters are able to keep up. They ask them to speak a bit slower.

"TimeCoin" "draft": Is stated to be from May 2008, but there are no creation and edit timestamps. OpenOffice will always include a creation timestamp.

Uses A4 paper size, not Letter. Converting PDF to Word will inherit the paper size.

Judge asks what would happen if you print an old document and scan it, what will happen to the fonts? KPMG explains about OCR quality etc. But these docs do not appear to be scanned.

Another "draft" was produced in Windows 8 which came out in 2012.

Talks about Word's "editing time" record, recording how much time has been spent working on the doc. 1 day, 8 hours. Consistent with other timestamps.

Word file: 32 cases of double line spacing. Consistent with exporting bitcoin.pdf to word in Adobe software.

Scanned white paper with coffee stain! Scanned in 2019, but they don't have the original specimen.

A symbol is missing in the scanned version, should be a lambda symbol. OpenSymbol used in bitcoin.pdf, the code number for lambda, symbol was replaced in later version of font (?), shows the doc is more recent.

Similar changes in < and > symbols, changing the formulas.

New doc now, some sort of notes or something? Editing time 21 days, consistent with timestamps. Indicating doc was left open that long. Doc has revision #1, indicating only 1 save. Indicates clock manipulation.

Shows docx XML data pointing to the file having been created in Word 2010.

File uses a template "normal.m", not "normal.dot", possibly indicating export/import from PDF/Word.

Meta-data file creation in 2008. Calibri Light font used, introduced in Windows 8 in 2012.

This wouldn't be caused by a later opening of the file, since the last-mod timestamp is the same as the creation timestamp.

Now email from Wright to Dave Kleiman, supposedly sent in 2008. KPMG got a PDF, while BDO (Wright's side) received the email in raw format.

The References header contains encoded timestamps indicating email was sent in 2014.

Shows a scanned document with typed text and handwriting, apparently showing Wright writing "Nakamoto" as a suggested nym.

Font analysis of "1" indicates manipulation. Same with 0s in "2008", indicates editing.

They can reproduce this with Adobe software.

A PDF doc with a flowchart, from 2008 according to meta-data. Created with Adobe Distiller 15, from 2015.

Content analysis of same doc: Font copyrighted 2015.

15 minute break now, because, as judge remarked, "this is difficult material to digest".

Haukaas asks KPMG to review their analysis of a "2008" email from Wright to Dave Kleiman. Hovering over receiver shows it was sent to dave at kleiman dot com. Headers showed Wright sent it to himself, through only one email server, in 2014.

Used Outlook 15, not available in 2008 (came out in 2013?). "In-Reply-To" header decodes to March 6, 2014. When did Kleiman die, asks judge. 2013.

Any general remarks, asks Haukaas. Lots of inconsistencies, can't say for sure that files are created in 2008.

Manshaus takes over questioning.

Did you discuss the mandate of the report? We discussed the engagement in general, can't remember other drafts of the mandate text. This is what they asked of us.

You've used a lot of reference docs. Did you discuss this? We discussed thoroughly how to produce the report. If you go for a car ride, you could take the shortest path, or a large amount of alternative routes.

They decided to look at the actual data in the file and see if they are consistent with regular use of the apps. This is what we have documented.

Manshaus: what if someone used OpenOffice, switched to Word, any consequence? No, we looked at the docs.

But the files are so old, shouldn't you have created a testing environment? No, we can't know which versions were used in 2008.

Manshaus trying to imply that various versions make analysis impossible? KPMG reiterates that they looked at what the docs show today.

Will moving the file from one env to another affect the file? Manshaus says that he has a court doc that he wanted to send to someone, but an image wasn't visible for the receiver. You emulated a regular user, but did you consider Wright? No.

Manshaus shows a document from someone visiting Wright, finding he has lots of books and "dead laptops".

Sartre post is shown. Quotes what it takes to verify a signature, going into arcane Linux details.

Asks if Linux/Windows transition could be relevant. They don't have any thoughts on this.

Emil brings up the BDO report, quotes them making the same findings as KPMG.

Manshaus also quotes, different MD5 sums of bitcoin.pdf or something. Emil says third-party system could change the file. Manshaus makes the case that this makes it unproducible. Emil says they can't control what a third-party does with their files.

Manshaus quotes the KPMG report conclusion that says all documents are either manipulated or unverifiable. Bjørn says one could rather say an unexplained deviation.

What does unverifiable mean? How would you send a doc to the court as evidence, as verifiable? Bjørn hesitates.

Says he would verify by looking at the meta-data that is actually in the file.

Manshaus: report is very big, is everything of same importance? It's important to show that all docs have been analysed.

You've used clean-room, is that important? Yes.

If I get a doc by email, I would open it, look at it and close it. Does that matter for the doc? It would make a temporary file, if you want to save it, you must do it explicitly, not within the email app.

Reiterates that they have looked a the docs they were presented.

Manshaus quotes source code having little meta-data, no version control. Was that different in 2008 than today? Don't know, assumes third guy can answer later.

One of the docs had missing creation timestamp. Could it due to certain overwrites? We just observe the data is missing, not according to regular use of Open Office.

Yes, but does this imply manipulation? Wouldn't a manipulator have put something false instead of empty? Would you manipulate like this, given IT skills?

Hard to say, but we see such things in different cases also. Intentional manipulation is hard to get consistent.

Manhaus: total editing time indicating manipulation – BDO says this is unreliable.

"Normal" templates. Manshaus points out an error in screenshots, Bjørn confirms, is unsure how. Manshaus says Word may have changed the document. Bjørn says it's one possibility.

docx XML indicating Word 2010: Which Word version did you open this in? This is not opened in Word, but in FTK. But you opened it before? This is directly from the source we've been given, without change.

Haukaas says time is scarce, needs 30 minutes to go through source code. Manshaus says he will speed up.

Asks about file timestamps, how do you manage this? This is OS level, we have looked at app level.

What about text files? No meta-data there.

No further questions from Manshaus. Judge asks about the potential issues Manshaus asked about, moving from Windows to Linux etc. Would meta-data reflect?

Can't say for sure, but in principle no.

Are the deviations the same across files? Not all deviations can be explained by file moving.

Bjørn says they found a typo in a date in the report. A 2009 date is one month off.

Bjørn and Emil are excused. Next witness takes the stand. He's the source code expert.

Karl Stefan something, Manager at KPMG. Makes the affirmation. Sits down, gives an introduction to his source code analysis.

C++ Bitcoin code is shown, but a top comment says Wright is the author, "Copyright (c) 2008".

He explains source code vs. compilation.

Says the copyright comment is not verifiable. Shows the "2008" version includes a bugfix that was included in a post 0.1.0 version of the public code. So the bug was fixed, reintroduced, and fixed again?

Compressed public keys: There's an example of this in a comment (as far as I understand), but it wasn't supported in the client that was used at the time – introduced in 2012.

A reference to GCC 3.4.4, but this version could not be found anywhere.

We're not seeing this on the displays, hard to describe now. He's going through some comments with inconsistencies, superfluous spacing.

exe file analysis, apparently they were sent one. They found the original on Satoshi Institute. It's the same as the first released exe, except version set to 0.0.8.

He has trouble speaking slowly enough for the interpreters.

They have used "PE Checksum" software indicating 0.0.8 is derived from 0.1.0.

Used "Detect It Easy" for further analysis. Shows identical timestamps of 0.0.8 and 0.1.0. Says both built with GCC 3.4.5, at the same time.

Shows log file produced by the client. Explains "log file", judge nods. Log shows client couldn't reach an IP (the client's own public IP, I think) – this was reported to GitHub in 2013. Could be many reasons for this error, but natural to look for bug reports.

Haukaas has no questions. Manshaus asks.

Different checksums. How much has been changed, could it be an accident? It's like a hash – it tells there's been a change, not the nature of the change.

No further questions. Any closing comments? Yes, about source code control, he would like to answer Manshaus' earlier question.

VC (version control) not used, how does this affect analysis? Bitcoin available from GitHub today, Satoshi didn't use VC in the beginning.

Some change was made in relation to Finney in 0.1.0? Yes, a line was removed. Why hadn't Satoshi discovered the error himself? He can't speculate why Satoshi needed others to test.

After Finney change, 0.1.0 version was kept, he says.

Dismissed.

Day is coming to an end, miraculously on time. Discussing the coming court days now.

Thanks for following! Look out for reflections on the day later on.

"He took a court in 2006" – yeah, here I meant to write class, not court.