Thread by @bitnorbert

Day 7 🧵 #WeAreAllHodlonaut

GM Oslo 🌅 It's the last day of the trial, and court will be in session in 90 minutes.

We'll hear the remainder of Hodlonaut's closing arguments in the first session (85 minutes), and the rest of the day will be Wright's closing arguments. And then we all go home.

Be aware that this isn't like in the movies where court ends with the declaration of the verdict and the bang of a gavel. We don't know exactly when the verdict will fall, but we're talking weeks, probably well into October.

I highly recommend following other live tweeters as well, to protect my mistranslations against meme formation 😬. My own favourites are @SpecificMills, @kristiandoble and @wizsecurity.

If you find my work here useful, I sincerely appreciate tips to keep me in coffee and fårikål. 🧡

The room is filling up. Hodlonaut hangs out with his supporters, making casual conversation before taking his seat.

We are in session. Myklebust continues her closing arguments, starts by summarising Monday's points.

Wright gave false information during his testimony, including Todd's tweet. He gave detailed information, so it's not a recollection issues. Shows Wright is unreliable.

Court must therefore assume Wright is not Satoshi.

Summarises the freedom of speech points made on Monday. Defamation is not around Wright not being Satoshi, but that he cannot be trusted due to fraudulent evidence.

Even if evidence appears tomorrow supporting Wright being Satoshi, we still know he has lied, and this was Hodlonaut's accusation. Factual statements are legal. This is sufficient.

Matters of public interest enjoy particular speech protection. Myklebust now goes through legal precedence from 2020 around this.

Precedence says such protection covers the discourse at large, and cannot be limited by the usage of some particular word. (Nice finding, Myklebust)

More precedence says the more serious the accusation, the more careful the speaker must be. Hodlonaut did not accused Wright of a crime, only that he cannot be trusted. "Fraud" has 4 different definitions, some of them vague.

Statements must also be seen in the context of online lingo. Shows precedence for this, where quite vulgar tweet-like statements were found to have protection.

Shows a UK verdict about a "London Muslim" blog, someone is called racist, slut etc.

I'm enjoying Myklebust's dead-pan delivery of highly vulgar tweets in her impeccable English.

She reads from the UK verdict. Vulgarism against a public person "must be tolerated".

Judge asks her what the English word "conjecture" means, which she explains well.

Ølnes and Jenssen explained the difference between "LinkedIn and Twitter", lingo on Twitter is different.

Goes through precedence on the protection of anonymous online speech which warns against a chilling effect. Anonymity strengthens freedom of speech. Wright's attacks function as a warning to others; "look what happens if you go against us".

Wright's own behaviour has significance. Shows precedence about a headmaster's online political statements, leading to him getting called a "neo nazi". He had "willingly exposed himself to public scrutiny".

Precedence talks about "prior conduct of the person concerned". This is relevant, says Myklebust – Wright is a public person. Hodlonaut did not present new information. "Faketoshi" had been used for a long time before Hodlonaut tweeted.

"Fraud" is a criticism of manipulated evidence. Wright has to tolerate this.

More precedence shows that he who uses strong language himself, must tolerate other people's use of such language against himself.

Wright has used far harsher language than Hodlonaut. Hodlonaut's statements must be seen in the context of the medium. Quotes Wright's Twitter obscenities.

Hashtags, famous followers etc have no relevance to the spread of the tweets, which were deleted quickly. Evidence contains only one such screenshots, with one retweet and 12 likes. None of the witnesses had seen these tweets.

Wright had claimed he received serious threats after Hodlonaut's tweets. But Wright apparently forgot he got such threats two years earlier as well. Means either threats against him are common, or if they in fact were not made at all.

The claims of Wright's right of response/contradiction: this is a requirement for the press. But Wright had in any case the opportunity to respond. He had 9x the followers of Hodlonaut.

Wright did disappear from Twitter, but he does have access to media through Coingeek, a large publication. Wright could also simply have disproven claims of fraud by signing or moving, but didn't want to. Because he has no keys.

Haukaas takes over.

Wants to talk about privacy infringement, judge says it comes late. Will allow it.

Wright wants compensation for breach of his privacy. Apparently the tweets are too old for this.

"Clearly mentally ill" is claimed to be a breach of privacy. But Hodlonaut had nothing to do with Wright's actual health conditions, this should be obvious. Nobody knew about his autism diagnosis at the point.

Furthermore, autism is not an illness, so it wouldn't apply in any case.

Compensation must be in response to damages. But this case is not about money, but Wright's desire to be recognised as Satoshi.

Haukaas and judge discuss the finer points of the claims in the case. Clarification of how this case relates to the coming UK case. The tweet in the UK case is the only one cited in Hodlonaut's claims.

Haukaas steps down. Judge makes some notes of the discussion they just had.

This concludes Hodlonaut's closing arguments, ahead of schedule. We break now for 15 minutes.

Manshaus starts closing arguments. Says parties have agreed the tweets are defamatory. Citing dictionaries are not necessary – Hodlonaut has indicated he meant "fraud" as something criminal.

Wright is accused of being a fraud, but also of being mentally ill etc. This is simply harassment. "Consensus" among "harassers" does not apply. Appealing to the medium is irrelevant given Hodlonaut's witnesses, who would not have tweeted in that style.

Hodlonaut seems not to want to reflect on the reach of the tweets. He stopped tweeting when working at Seetee, indicating he realises it's not OK. Clear evidence that Wright is Satoshi. Matonis, Andresen, Wright, everything points to the genesis block.

Speculation around ATO, shelf companies etc are just that. Wright has done actual work and is a recognised expert in his fields. The evidence are not just blog posts. His Wikipedia profile is not relevant, biased.

Suffices to establish that the intent of the tweets were not to have a debate, but to attack.

Conclusions around fraud and manipulation cannot be made. And the docs have not been used as evidence by Wright in this case. (?)

Harsh accusations in several messages over multiple days, not written in affect. It's not a debate, trying to recruit others for attacks.

Hodlonaut has never retracted the statements or told others to cease.

Says Hodlonaut has dropped the claim that Wright is not Satoshi. Shows uncertainty of this question.

If there is any protection for these tweets, it's minimal. They don't pursuit truth, only attack in a way that Wright can't respond to.

Should Hodlonaut lose and make a claim to EMD, he would be rejected, says Manshaus.

If you claim to critique authority, you must follow the same rules as press does. Right of response etc.

"Pressing social need" for the tweets? Cites European Convention on Human Rights.

Lopp's article again – "people on the internet".

Klin is a leading expert, said the source around narcissism was unreliable, "from the internet".

Plaintiff has not spent much time on the tweets themselves, instead citing Kleiman etc.

Accusing someone of a crime has higher requirement for proof.

Judge asks if they think there was no public debate on whether Wright was Satoshi at the time of the tweets? No, in this context Wright was a partially public figure. Degree of public interest vs the character of the accusation.

Helle takes over. Says plaintiff has filed enormous amounts and cannot "pull a rabbit out of a hat".

Cites law around diligence of speech when making accusations.

Cites Norwegian precedence, parts of which were criticised in Strasbourg. Aftenposten v Morgan Anderson. Current facts don't matter, only known facts at the time of the statements.

Cites McVicar v UK around timing of statements.

The conclusion thus far is that the situation around the time of the publication is what matters. Hodlonaut can't "pick cherries where he wants".

Hodlonaut has not retracted his statements, and agrees with Wright about their interpretation. Has later looked for others who have tweeted similar things. Part of public discourse?

Satoshi debate had public interest, but Hodlonaut has not debated Wright before accusing. Framing this as public discourse is "constructed".

Hodlonaut's witnesses are not connected to the case, but have "read on the internet". They wouldn't have tweeted like that, so the arguments around lingo are invalid.

Wright has documented convincingly that he strongly opposed getting outed as Satoshi. The tweets were pure harassment. Wright's statements were part of a long-running debate, including with Todd.

Wright, however, didn't know Hodlonaut and the accusations came out of nowhere. Wright still collaborates with ATO and other authorities – getting called a fraud, scammer, ill, is serious.

Wright was not behind finding Hodlonaut's identity. This was Ayre, who had received harsh comments from Hodlonaut.

No grounds to call Matthews unreliable, but plaintiff needs to because all their claims will fall apart if he were reliable. Matthews have told these stories many times, specific recollection is not surprising and does not indicate unreliability.

Matthews had a serious career, why would he spend years patenting bitcoin tech and working with Wright if he's not Satoshi? Unthinkable.

Plaintiff relies on Wright having constructed everything to get out of ATO in 2013. But his ATO troubles went back to 2009.

No reason to discredit Bridges as plaintiff attempts. Hodlonaut claims Wright did nothing, but Jenkins described "wall of heat". Discussed blockchain tech etc. Jenkins had no doubts that Wright qualified to invent Bitcoin.

Yousuf also saw Wright's "large operation", had no doubts. Lynam got Bitcoin software in 2008. Wright told them this was mining software in 2013. 6.5k bitcoin, 334k verifications. No reason not to trust this explanation.

Talked to Sinclair about blockchain tech as well.

In sum, Wright's witnesses do not support Hodlonaut's claims. Real witnesses, not "people on the internet".

Hodlonaut used a method of being as provocative and shocking as possible in order to spread his message. Generating clicks, likes and retweets. Crosses the line of what is acceptable speech.

Shows 9/11 tweet saying Wright is as believable as the official story. Other unrelated tweets are shown, "they speak for themselves", Hodlonaut's "own echo chamber".

Hodlonaut "clearly" had economical motives. Only "BTC", heavily invested. Is not interested in debate. Shows tweet saying he blocks shitcoiners.

Lightning torch made Hodlonaut better known. Dorsey and CoinDesk followed. Clear economical motive, not a "public watchdog".

Hodlonaut couldn't remember "Bitcoin Plebs" membership. "Strange, then", when he agrees so strongly with this group.

"Bitcoin Plebs" group is not hard to lead in a certain direction. Instruction is given in the group. Dates coincide with Hodlonaut's tweets.

Helle pronounces "Faketoshi" as "Fucketoshi". I like this.

Shows Hodlonaut looking for a list of influential people critical of Wright.

Hodlonaut included hashtag even in tweets unrelated to Wright during the "fraud week".

Shows precedence from Avisa Nordland. An MD was criticised by the newspaper over time, claims of unbalanced coverage.

Explains to the judge how this could be seen as relevant for this case.

"Fraud week" was felt as personally degrading to Wright, regardless of whether he was a public person.

At last, Helle adjusts his microphone. Easier to hear now.

Precedence is taken as saying the statements must be seen as a whole, not just surgically isolated words, and in light of how each reader interprets them.

The more serious the allegations, the more solid the evidence must be. Even if based on value/judgment.

Cites Baneheia verdict. Accusations of crime must be seen as statements of fact requiring evidence.

Can draw parallel to hate crime. Strongly condescending characterisations can be illegal. "Clearly mentally ill" is a statement of fact.

Far beyond what a public person has to tolerate.

Incitement ("the chain goes on"). "Feel free to join the celebration".

No prior contact between Wright and plaintiff. Not part of debate between them.

Wright could have hoped for a response from Wright, but Wright's account disappeared. No reason to say Wright had his own media channels.

Cites Skalka v Poland about what a public person must tolerate.

Judge asks about the details of this EMD verdict against Poland, who had a rule against criticising public officials.

Independent of what Hodlonaut knew, he brought Wright's health into the public discourse. Nothing justifies this. Doesn't matter if true or false, only that they were used as part of the accusations of criminality.

Manshaus takes over.

Critique against Wright is on false premise. Consensus against Wright is mainly in the "BItcoin Core environment", doesn't mean it's correct.

O'Hagan hadn't started at the time of the "outings". Wired/Gizmodo contacted Wright, having received info from "a third party". They had worked on the articles for a while, confirmed facts. Wright hoped it would blow over.

Were not prepared for "outings", Wright didn't want exposure. Wright hasn't done anything wrong, simply didn't want to speak to journalists. Was pressured into publicity by McGregor. Sartre was a compromise.

Matonis had "a feeling" after first meeting, was confirmed in 2016. Andresen was skeptical. Signing took a long time, they talked the whole time, Andresen became convinced.

Everything went well until BBC interview. Wright became skeptical at more and more McGregor demands. Hence Sartre. Referred to Sartre declining Nobel price, obviously referring to himself not wanting to sign. The "BTC camp" was ready to attack.

Halseth hadn't read Sartre, and therefore didn't get the point.

Bitcoin payments to Satoshi blocks weren't coordinated with Wright, so he didn't follow up.

Wright cannot be blamed for anything.

Video clips were played without explanation. BBC expert was wrong ("a single transaction"). Nothing to do with signing, but Wright was provoked. Expert wanted to see more, angering Wright.

Plaintiff says the "outings" were planned. But clearly the goal was long-term to build an IP portfolio, the outings were only a distraction.

Lots of documentation that Wright is Satoshi, yet plaintiff says nothing can be trusted. But look at blog posts etc.

Lunch break now 🍔 Back in 45 minutes.

Meant of course "Hodlonaut" at the start of that message.

Thanks for paying for my delicious lunch today, guys! ❤️

We're back in session. Manshaus continues his closing arguments.

Matonis blogged about the evidence. Cryptographic, social, and technical. Given all this, he was satisfied.

Andresen was hardest to convince since he knew Satoshi best, was skeptical, but did get convinced.

Andresen made additional demands, including a conversation over email and then at the session. Matthews said he watched closely.

The online criticism ("Pineapple" etc), we know it's invalid because Electrum admins said they found downloads.

Wright receives baseless criticism at every step, and even though it's mistaken, it gets repeated so much that it eventually gets widely accepted.

Quotes Gavin's deposition about him being convinced. Was frustrated at Sartre, but he's still convinced despite this. Plaintiff has tried to make it seem like he's "bamboozled". But look at his email to Wright, "likely not bamboozled me", "more likely than not".

Why don't Matonis and Andresen witness? Because we have so much documentation from them already, no need to go deeper into this. Andresen is probably "done with this case" and does not want to contribute. @gavinandresen

Apparently the video conference receives no audio. Judge calls tech support.

The criticism is enormously biased towards how Satoshi would or should be. Ølnes said Wright wasn't "the type", but Andresen is of the opposite opinion, "the same prickly character". He knows much better than Ølnes.

Halseth hadn't heard everything earlier in the trial, and presented various theories about Electrum. Halseth said he couldn't compromise a newly-downloaded Electrum on another person's computer. Halseth didn't know about the discussions Wright and Andresen had.

Electrum admin spent a long time looking at logs, but dropped it when they found things they didn't like (my words).

Defence hasn't changed up things, Don Lynam had health reasons not to witness.

Witnesses have shown Wright had relevant background "leading up to the creation of Bitcoin". Handwritten "white paper draft" was about noting down ideas.

Tech support trying to work out the video conference audio issue. Succeeded.

Hodlonaut's witnesses "could be anyone who reads on the internet". All three follow Hodlonaut and are invested in "Bitcoin Core". Witnesses said BSV is a fork, but it's not (lol ok).

They think they can prove that Andresen was not fooled, and there is no proof that he was.

Judge: if BSV is not a fork, what is it? The intention is to implement the white paper, they've made an "airdrop" … Judge thanks him for the answer.

Plaintiff has used evidence that defence has not raised. Kleiman etc. These docs are of little significance as evidence. ATO docs are supposed to support the tax theory, witnesses show they don't.

Plaintiff contacted a Kleiman lawyer to get a raw email, but that email has no significance. Calvin Ayre has been mentioned, but is not related to the case.

KPMG report is very comprehensive. Try to read it. Instead of documenting the whole of files, they cherry-pick fonts, margins etc. Really looks like 2-3 people have looked at different things, indiscriminately.

Shows plaintiff having asked for additional Satoshi evidence. [I didn't understand where that went]

Shows KPMG saying maybe "manipulated" is not the best word. KPMG haven't documented usage of a realistic test env.

Holes, discrepancies don't mean someone manipulated the evidence. BDO said KPMG concludes too soon. 12-14 year old files should be considered more carefully. Moving files from Word to OpenOffice etc, can have consequences.

Different hash of the SSRN file is significant …

Judge: that's not the most significant finding in that file.

No, but looks like someone has tampered with it, experts think it's KPMG. Mistakes happen.

Files change very easily, just open them in a new version (snaps his fingers).

Have someone changed the files to hurt or help Wright? We don't know. Wright didn't even raise these docs. No evidence of manipulation.

The kinds of statements in this case have very little freedom of speech protection. Shows Axel Springer AG v Germany. An attack on a person's reputation must be of a certain seriousness.

Criticism must follow "the ethics of journalism". This requirement for diligence also goes for people who tweets or blogs, because of public interest.

Hodlonaut's attacks were "uncontrolled" in that he tried to recruit others.

Cites Delfi; if a platform allows anonymous debate, this puts responsibility on the platform in addition to the speaker. Hodlonaut was responsible for all he "recruited".

(Delfi refers to Delfi AS v Estonia)

If you say something wrong, you can't claim EMD §10.

High damage potential on the internet, high reach. Uncontrolled spread. Hodlonaut has celebrity status in the community. Shows up in feeds, according to witnesses.

Cites the Norwegian Constitution, §100, about freedom of speech. Only pursuit of truth has protection, not these tweets.

Goes through a legal opinion about freedom of speech to support lack of protection for the tweets.

Judge questions the relevance of the legal opinion, which was about immigration. Manshaus defends.

Reiterates no protection in European Convention on Human Rights §10.

Goes through precedence saying that the more serious the accusation, the higher the requirement for diligence, including for public persons.

If you just reference someone else's accusations, you must distance yourself from them.

Plaintiff is not a watchdog protected by §10. Cites precedence. Hodlonaut has "a clear agenda", has failed to take responsibility.

Judge asks about "public watchdog". Hodlonaut claims public interest. No, he has claimed a community mission, protecting investors etc.

Shows precedence that value judgments also need to have factual support.

Manshaus suggests a break here. 15 minutes. 😌

Now for the final session of this trial and the conclusion of Wright's closing arguments.

Manshaus shows precedence about the importance of civility in discourse, even under public interest, to enjoy protection.

Manshaus has gone from calling Bitcoin "Bitcoin BTC" to calling it "Bitcoin Core" today. I wonder if he's had a talk with Wright.

Cites legal opinion about anonymity in speech. Anonymity should be the exception in the public discourse in Norway.

Cites Steel and Morris v UK. Non-journalists, like individuals and small group, can enjoy journalistic speech protections, but must act in good faith (as far as I understood).

Hodlonaut had actively built a following, his tweets were by definition mass-communication and he had a responsibility to use diligence and follow laws.

The allegations of fraud and scam doubtlessly accuse Wright of criminality. Precedence shows it doesn't suffice to show there have been suspicions – need stronger factual support.

There's no "counterbalancing" in the tweets, "per the ethics of journalism".

Disagree that Wright's strong language affect things. Slack screenshots are from a closed channel.

Tood tweet is 4 years old. There have been many condescending statements from Todd about Wright. Todd called him fraud and plagiarist. This doesn't support Hodlonaut's activity.

Says "a lot indicate" that Hodlonaut was a member of the Bitcoin Plebs group. This group is central to the case.

Cites Maemo, Baneheia, Tønsberg Blad, etc cases around compensation.

Court has to make its own decision, take into consideration that this was on the internet with the intention to cause as much damage as possible.

Now discussing Hodlonaut's claims. Talks about narrowing the decision (legal nitty-gritties I don't understand).

Talks about Ontier's initial letter and how it should relate to compensation etc here. Jurisdiction whatnot.

Says plaintiff has not responded to various inquiries, instead suing. He should have given up his identity in order to participate in a regular process. All of this has increased the costs. Hodlonaut should not win costs.

This concludes the arguments. Haukaas can now give a comment, which he accepts.

Defence has said only evidence Hodlonaut had access to can be used. Then what's the point of all of Wright's witnesses?

Not being protected by §10 doesn't mean a statement is illegal. Doesn't indicate defamation in our case.

Skalka is a different type of case, not relevant.

Another legal opinion cites is about hate speech, not defamation. "Tasteless speech" has strong protection.

Another cited verdict was about the right to receive information, not to give it (speak) – not relevant.

A Norwegian supreme court decision cited by Manshaus was not about defamation either.

Hodlonaut was to be used as an example. No evidence at all that the tweets had any effect. We don't know how many have read them, and Wright has the burden of proof there. Damage is nothing but a postulation.

No evidence that Hodlonaut lead a group, nor that he was a member of Bitcoin Plebs, or even their leader, just based on timing. Many people tweeted about Wright at the time. Clearly not started by Hodlonaut.

Shows a screenshot of a message Hodlonaut got sent of the Bitcoin Plebs group. If he was in the group, why would someone send him a screenshot from it?

Bitcoin Plebs members rallied around Hodlonaut, but so did many others on Twitter – doesn't show he was a member of this group.

Hodlonaut thinks Wright must tolerate these characteristica. He could also just stop claiming to be Satoshi.

Haukaas uses Hodlonaut's first name now, where he has used the last name earlier.

If everyone who got called mentally ill sued, we'd have quite a few lawsuits, says Haukaas. People who are less eloquent must also be allowed in the public discourse.

Wright's evidential strategy is to obfuscate. Pressure from McGregor, very vague. Everyone has misunderstood the Sartre post, but still nobody can explain the logic.

Matonis wrote he received an early white paper draft, why hasn't defence mentioned this? Because it was falsified.

Andresen and Matthews disagreed on who downloaded Electrum.

Defence said we know from Electrum admins said Electrum was downloaded, but we don't. Shows correspondance from Electrum admin. It's inconclusive, we can't say we know.

BDO was only asked superficially about their report. If they had gone deeper, we would see they made all of the same findings as KPMG. Lots of time spent on stated differences (SSRN hash etc) are only meant to obfuscate. KPMG said it was due to SSRN.

The witnesses are the same sort of obfuscation. He's Satoshi only because he has IT skills? Sinclair meeting wasn't dated. They just trust Wright.

Defence says Wright was accused of criminality, but which crimes? Can't say because there were no such accusations.

Blog on narcissism showed lots of symptoms, Klin mostly agreed. We can trust on things we find on the internet.

Wrighit says we can't trust things we find on the internet, but all the information he has on Satoshi is also from the internet. 🔥

Judge points out Haukaas has spent a lot of time now. He agrees, turns to the question of cost.

Evidence is just a lot of puzzle pieces, takes a long time to find which are relevant. Wright refused to point out what was relevant, causing plaintiff to incur cost.

Reiterates falsified Tulip trust documentation, private key stomping etc.

Lots of technical aspects increases costs. Just Sartre in itself. And Wright has not contributed to simplifying things.

If it's difficult to put the puzzle pieces together, it's because a lot of it is manipulated.

Strength differential between the parties. We can see this just by looking at the courtroom now.

Legal arguments around reputational damage compensation now, I'm not really able to follow.

Switching to Myklebust.

"Pressing social need" (ECHR) for the limitation of speech?

Todd tweet: Defence said Wright was confronted about it. In fact it was Manshaus himself who confronted him.

Wright's right of response – the tweets themselves were invitations to respond. Shows Wikileaks tweet where Wright responds. But didn't respond to Hodlonaut. Either he didn't see his tweets, or he had no response.

Manshaus' final comments now.

Says Wright responded to plaintiff when asked.

Talks about how ECHR works, Skalka. Again a bit hard for me to follow. Says Skalka is "directly applicable".

Manshaus went through various precedence to defend its relevance. This completes his comment.

Judge now discussing the filed costs. 5.6MNOK from Hodlonaut, 7.6MNOK from Wright, not including BDO report.

Haukaas says most of their cost is related to the complexity of the defence's evidence. He objects to the size of Wright's costs.

Manshaus says other lawyers have been involved on their side. Says all questions from plaintiff has not saved time and costs, just increased them.

The size of the case has been increased by plaintiff, says Manshaus.

Just suggests one week for the parties to complete their cost docs. Manshaus says 2.5 weeks. Judge says October 7.

Judge tries to press Manshaus on what BDO's cost is. He doesn't know.

Manshaus is required to send judge the BDO costs today or tomorrow.

The proceedings are now over. 14 days for a verdict usually, but not possible in this case. Judge indicates November 8, hope sooner. Maybe much sooner.

Judge offers the parties a notification of one hour ahead of the verdict's publication.

Court is adjourned. Thanks for following today! Will collect my thoughts and reflect a bit tonight.

I guess I meant "But Hodlonaut's statement had nothing to do …"

Not that this is terribly important, but I think judge may have said one *day* ahead, not one hour.