Thread by @bitnorbert

COPA v Wright, the identity issue – Day 1 🧵

Today is for "oral openings", which I'm told is not a dental procedure. Both sides will make their case, and no surprises are expected. I look forward to taking in the tense atmosphere that often surrounds opening days of major trials – but the real drama doesn't start until tomorrow.

Court is in session from 10:30 (2.5 hours from now).

I'll make my way to the courthouse early to try to secure a seat. I hope the case doesn't fall apart before I get there.

Calvin remains belligerent until the end. But he would not take Ager-Hanssen's bet, and he will not show in London.

There's no hubbub outside court. Met my BSV counterpart @369bsv there, as well as an experienced reporter covering a different case who gave us some practical advice.

* Bring water, it gets hot
* Electrical outlets are in the back, but there aren't many of them

I'm seated! This is much smaller than I thought, and many of the seats are reserved – I got lucky.

There are many BSVers here. They are friendly and say they like BSV more than Craig.

Here's Craig. Pinstripe suit.

I also see @AaronvanW, a nice surprise.

A Bird came by and shared the URL for skeleton arguments: bit.ly/COPAWrightTrial

The courtroom is ridiculously hot. When proceedings start in eight minutes, they'll turn the noisy fans off as well.

. @LuciaOC_ is here reporting for @Law360.

Fans are off. Mellor enters, we all rise.

Mellor says 400 people have been granted remote viewing access. He reminds us of the terms – no photographs, no recording, no screen grabs. Breach is a contempt of court.

Mellor says he has been sent various books that "appear" to relate to the case, says he will not read them.

He has also received a message from another faketoshi asking for a declaration that he's Satoshi. This will not be granted.

He received an email on Friday from someone saying he's Satoshi, containing some PGP keys.

COPA's representative speaks, introduces their position. Talks about the BDO drive, the ChatGPT forgeries. He searched an internet Q&A on whether the whitepaper was written in LaTeX, before introducing the LaTeX evidence.

The claims are serious, and about large sums of money. He has terrorized people who have debunked him. Has considerable financial backing, Ayre. COPA has brought the case to put a stop to this conduct.

Wright has produced a large volume of forgeries, including his reliance documents. He can't point to any reliable documents that supports his claims to be Satoshi. Relies on 3 handwritten notes, even those have problems.

Over 10 years, Wright has had the strongest incentives to prove he's Satoshi, but has failed to do that. Attempts have been "an abject failure". His stories are inconsistent.

A document is shown on screen. It's a COPA witness statement, I think. Going through the claims.

One issue is whether the wp is written in LaTeX and whether Wright's doc is reliable.

Quotes saying Wright said the document is "materially identical". The document is also Wright's excuse for earlier "drafts" being manipulated.

Both sides experts agree the documents are "a lie". Experts agree the wp was written in OpenOffice 2.4, not LaTeX, and that the PDF produced by the LaTeX is not the Bitcoin wp, has many discrepancies.

No other files in Overleaf is the Bitcoin wp either.

Experts also agree that it's *not* difficult to reverse-engineer the Bitcoin wp PDF into LaTeX. The LaTeX also uses feature that did not exist at the time the wp was published. Wright had also extensively edited the document in Overleaf in 2023. A long editing history is shown on screen.

The editing ended the day before Wright finally complied with sharing the file with COPA.

The importance cannot be overstated. The real Satoshi would know the wp was not written in LaTeX. "A desperate reaction" to the Madden report.

We can trace what happened. First he did internet research, "was anything in the Bitcoin wp compiled in LaTeX". A CAH tweet is shown on screen. Then they quote Wright's 4th witness statement making no mention of LaTeX.

Then he created the LaTeX files. Grabiner has no answer to these points, simply records the opposing statements of Wright.

BDO drive is now half of Wright's evidence. He discovered it "by happenstance" shortly after the Madden report. He claims these docs have a special status because they are untouched and a "time capsule".

Wright's expert (Lynch?) established the drive was accessed 2023, wastebasket was emptied. The original computer was last used in 2007. Someone engaged in extensive efforts to modify it and to make it appear it was last used in 2007, writes Lynch.

The drive had been mounted, the computer clock had been backdated. Lynch found at least some files had been known to be changed, others backdated.

Madden now. Same conclusion, but went further – found 145 files in the image had been postdated. Many of them among the 79 new reliance docs Wright had nominated.

Madden concludes the files were copied into the drive when the clock was backdated.

Madden examined NTFS metadata – 44 object IDs was from after 2007, pointing to actions in September 2023. Logs indicated 8 reboots in that period. Madden recovered two deleted image files. These were identical to each other, and 99.98% similar to the BDO disk image – they were predecessors.

90 of the 97 new reliance documents are from the edited BDO drive (?). Wright edited and backdated to make it look like work leading up to the release of Bitcoin.

Madden established a timeline of editing pointing to September 2023. File content had been manipulated recently but with backdating. 100s of GB was deleted from the BDO drive in 2023. Indications of ChatGPT.

Lynch and Madden produced a joint statement agreeing that the BDO content was not authentic, actively edited in September 2023. "Significantly edited". Recycle bin had been emptied in September 2023. Wright's attempts to explain away these things had no effect on the experts.

Found 71 documents to have been manipulated. None of the the other 26 new reliance documents supports Wright's claim to be Satoshi.

ng3.tex: "Hashcoin"-related doc was manipulated. A previous version was recovered, significant differences showing active editing. References to Bitcoin was changed to "Hashcoin" and "Timecoin" to make it look like an earlier draft.

Now quotes ChatGPT artifacts, "Certainly! Here's …". Another sign Wright is forging documents.

COPA now refers to an earlier reliance document "The Timecoin white paper". Madden found that an embedded timestamp dates it to May 2008. Wright claimed it was written by him, update to "Hashcoin wp". Madded found it was created by copying the Bitcoin wp, converting it to LaTeX and editing it. Notes appearing below the text is in another font – the font was derived from a flowchart in the real wp. Wright's excuse relates to vague compilation details, makes no sense. "Clear signs of manipulation".

Madden found a "replacement character", indicative of a process of conversion from a different document. Wright's excuses don't account for this character.

Indentations in empty lines precisely match the indentation of the flowchart in the real wp, indicating it was edited out.

Indentation varies on different pages, but are always consistent with removals from the real wp. Madden writes it would be extraordinary to insert indentation where flowcharts would be inserted in the future.

Madden found hyphens in the middle of words, which in the real wp appear when crossing pages, again suggesting editing.

Now going over more technical Madden findings pointing to editing. Irregularities in linebreaks, lost table structure etc – pointing to file conversion of the 2009 version of the wp, not the 2008 version, whereas Wright says it's a precursor to the 2008 version.

References section: The real Satoshi was not aware of the B-money paper until after 2008 – "couldn't possibly" be a precursor.

An email from Satoshi to Adam Back is shown, where Back tips Satoshi about Wei Dai's B-money. Satoshi writes back that he wasn't aware of it.

Now shows the handwritten 78-page note claiming to be an early draft of the wp. It contains many anachronisms.

See it here: nt4tn.net/scammer-craig-…

Another handwritten document (some doc on sparse graphs), and both experts agree it's backdated.

A third one, DeMorgan letterhead. "A number of problems with it". "RSA/DSA too large, need to try Schnorr/EDDSA/ECDSA/", Wright has written on it. But EDDSA wasn't introduced until 2011, but this doc is supposed to be from 2002.

(How can Wrigt be so sloppy)

We're on a 5-minute break.

Thanks to those who have tipped a bit to [e-mail]! Needless to say, taking time off for two weeks, and staying in London for that long, is not cheap.

Court is still on break.

Back in session.

COPA's representative: 21 people claim to have seen the whitepaper in an early draft, but there's no evidence from them.

Court transcripts from an earlier case (Kleiman?) is shown. Quotes Wright talking about the lengths of early drafts, and sharing it with uncle Lynam and colleagues. Second version was shared with Gareth Williams, wife, BDO colleagues etc. A third version was 10 pages long. Shared with Wei Dai, Williams, Lynam, people at university etc.

Danielle DeMorgan, Wright's sister, says nothing about receiving the wp. Centrebet employee also has no evidence. Goes through other witnesses without useful evidence. Max Lynam gave evidene in Oslo saying he could not recall seeing the wp. Edwin Archer, Yousuf, discussed digital currencies in general case, could not remember receiving the wp.

Neville Sinclair, partner at BDO, told Oslo court he had first discussed Bitcoin with Wright in 2011. Chesher, worked for Wright, witnessed in Coinbase litigation, first met Wright in 2010, after wp. Mark Archibald makes no mention of receiving wp. Gareth Williams, UK agent, died before Wright claimed to have anything to do with him. The list goes on, now there's a "mystery person", missed the name. Robert Jenkins of Vodafone, makes no mention of receiving wp. Same for someone named Peacock. Etc etc. Only Matthews and uncle Lynam claims to have seen wp, but they doubt their testimony.

Now cites CAH Whatsapp screenshots. "The biggest fake ever". Matthews replied "wtf is wrong with him". Matthews acknowledges the exchange, but said he went along with CAH saying Wright is a fake only to expose CAH.

Don Lynam will not testify here.

Bitcoin source code: Wright claims he wrote it. COPA requested documents relating to early source code be identified. In response, Wright identified just 2 docs. Not copy of source code, but README/setup notes.

Now shows real setup notes from Satoshi. It's the same text. Wright's docs are scans and has no evidentiary value.

Another scanned document is shown. A section of Bitcoin code, main.cpp with Wright's name. They point out certain code, asks Mellor to keep it in mind.

Now shows a forum post from 2013, Wayback machine. The first two lines point to early Bitcoin code. Poster says he will paste across several posts due to forum limitation. This sectioning reflects in Wright's scan.

It would have been straight-forward for Wright to take this code from the forum and print it to scan it back, but the specific artifacts relating to the forum limitations reflect in these scan.

Mellor asks how long this phenomenon goes on for. About 12 pages.

Now shows copyright sections from the source code where Wright's name appear, and points to irregularities. Creation time is six years after modification time.

Now there's an exe file, showing it was unambiguously modified. Wright accepts it was hex edited, but claims it was leaked to Kleiman and modified by someone there. Wright said that if it was him, he could have modified it much more impressively.

Wright having registered Bitcoin dot org has been "thoroughly discredited". Now referring to an interview Wright gave in 2019. "Proof is something simple like a credit card statement". He says in the interview that he has this.

Wright has disclosed a June 2019 doc. It's an email, a receipt from Anonymous Speech (and screenshots of his bank statements?). Madden established the records could not be authentic, which Wright accepted and came up with a cover story: the screenshots had been sent to him by a now-diseased lawyer, who had received them from an anonymous Reddit user. Wright didn't think they were genuine, so he sent them to someone to check. He now doesn't remember how he paid for the domain.

The timing after the interview strongly suggests that the email was the proof he referred to.

Now playing an 18-second clip, a laptop screen is being filmed. An order page showing a domain name was purchased, and Wright holds up his driver's license. It says Copyright 2019, supposedly filmed in June, 2019. But this could not have been filmed after 2009, because it looks different now. It could have been easily manufactured from an Internet Archive entry.

Going through signing sessions now. He didn't share signatures. An expert explains why it would have been fine to share them. No explanation for the complex procedure, why not sign, transfer the signature to a clean USB stick, and let the other person verify the signature with their own trusted software?

Wright says that in doing so, he would have demonstrated control of the private keys. But he was doing high-profile interviews intending to establish him as Satoshi. he was also worried about exposing his private key, but the expert (a professor) says that if this was a danger, Bitcoin wouldn't work.

A Wright witness statement is shown where he says it would be very easy to write software to produce a false positive. Someone else says one could use an altered version of Electrum etc. Wright's expert agrees.

Wright says Andresen downloaded Electrum, while Andresen says Wright did. Wright says the download was hash-verified, Andresen disagrees. Andresen opined in Kleiman that he might have been bamboozled.

The signing sessions were not recorded, could have been staged, chose an unnecessarily complex process.

Sartre blog post: a timeline email is shown specifying when it was going live, when signings were to take place etc. Shows the blog post, "a complicated method". Everyone thought the signed message would be a new one, but Wright took it from the blockchain, was debunked in hours.

Wright said in Kleiman it wasn't meant as evidence he's Satoshi.

Ayre's and Matthews' reactions indicate they were surprised at Sartre not being proof. MacGregor (I think) in an email "it's falling apart". Calvin wants to "fix it". MacGregor saying it can't be fixed.

Andresen in Kleiman: "he certainly decieved me". Gobbledigook.

After this, Wright was pressed to provide evidence, like moving coins. Shows email to Andresen saying "we are going to move coin". Wright made reporters send coin to Satoshi addresses promising he would send them back, which he didn't.

"Extraordinary claims" blog post. Wright has distanced himself from it. It was "certainly" written by MacGregor, but received "enthusiastically", now showing an email from Wright's wife ("your writing is REALLY impressive")

Now showing a tweet from Wright saying his stupidest mistake was going to the AU government to file (BlackNet?) in 2002. Screenshots shows backdated wp. He later said it wasn't meant to refer to Bitcoin wp, but the implication is unmistakable.

The 2002 project had nothing to do with Bitcoin.

Goes into emails supposedly between Wright and Kleiman. Wright asks Kleiman to help him with Bitcoin. The email domain wasn't created until 2009. Wright explained that the email wasn't an identical copy, but the *body* of the email was. Convoluted explanation from the Kleiman case now being repeated. Experts agree these emails are inauthentic.

Wright said he did send an email to Kleiman in 2008, but it did not include the last paragraph. That paragraph was fabricated by Ira Kleiman (??).

"Defies belief". The simple explanation is that Wright has forged this email in multiple iterations.

SSRN documents: Madded found backdated wp version. Wright agrees both versions there was created by him in 2019. "Doctor Wright doctored that version of the whitepaper before uploading it to SSRN".

Wright's claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto is a lie.

COPA has now completed their presentation.

We have broken for lunch. Back at 14:00.

Wirdum interview

Time to get back inside

We're back in session.

I'm seated between Reuters and AFP. Big leagues!

COPA (?) continues. Or developers' council?

When Wright started talking about Bitcoin, he didn't seem to know much about it, or even know how to spell it.

Careful about claiming Wright "fits" Satoshi. But he just likes talking about his accomplishments. His PhD was only in 2016, long after Bitcoin. When wp was published, his focus was elsewhere (forensics etc). But he's not very good at infosec, given he says he's been repeatedly hacked.

Reliance docs: the purpose of him identifying reliance docs was to point out the most important docs to identify him as Satoshi. But he hasn't picked docs which do that, instead treating it as a "moving target" or a "game of whack-a-mole". Seemingly never-ending sequence of documents. You'll be hearing excuses over the coming days. Wright will have you believe it's due to "operating systems" etc. But COPA served a request for information about operating systems, 10 days after Madden's report. This was rejected as "irrelevant", but he now seems to regard it as essential to understand why documents are inauthentic.

But this is a matter of expert evidence.

The operating system excuse doesn't apply to Overleaf. Why has Wright relied on such documents? None of them provide direct support that he's Satoshi.

Wright is the claimant against developers. He must prove in the "BTC Core" claim that he's Satoshi. The claim is "highly unusual", I don't know of other cases of such a claim of identity. Would expect evidence. On manipulated evidence, the judge might dismiss the case, or simply guess (sorry, I couldn't follow his reasoning here, it's like an analogy).

Now showing written testimony. Lynch points out a digital watermark that is not Satoshi's. Do you think Satoshi would furiously insert characters?

Dr. Wright is a fabulist.

He refers to another case where the person came forward as a forger. "Doctor Wright can't do that". Staggering in its size. "This it not a fight that they have brought by themselves". "It is time now to draw a line in the sand".

This concludes his presentation.

COPA brings up Wright's "disability". There are paragraphs from a join expert statements that Mellor is asked to keep in mind. They anticipate that there will be episodes of "emotional dysregulation".

Mellor asks if anyone can help when this happens. COPA says his wife is here and can handle it.

Sorry, this is Wright's council speaking now, not COPA.

They say Wright says there's a philosophical difference between the parties about what Bitcoin is. Wright believes the wp must be adhered to and that Bitcoin developers don't.

Mellor asks about the differences. Are they relevant? Shoosmiths said that if Bitcoin was more compliant with Wright's view, it would play in his favor.

The differences tie in with Wright's educational background, showing how Wright would invent Bitcoin, and why he won't show public proof. Precursor work is relevant because the inventor would have similar skills. Wright worked for a bank, studied law, worked in security, and "the precursors of blockchain".

COPA says in their skeleton arguments that many others have these skills, but that's just an assertion – Wright has a unique skillset.

Satoshi solved the double-spending problem. Shoosmiths explains what it is. An intermediary bank is made redundant.

Wright's LLM work: as assignment on documenting credits in a commercial transaction. [Explains buyer, seller, conformity of shipping contracts …]

Bitcoin provides an analogous payment mechanism governed by smart-contracts. Wright's LLM thesis from 2008 was found by Ontier. University shared it with them, no signs it is forged. Obvious similarities to the "bitcoin blockchain thinking". Purpose was to create a digital currency system with no intermediaries.

"No competing claim". Nobody else claims to be Satoshi, since 2016, despite multiple legal proceedings. Claimants are only interested in undermining Wright's claim, but are not interesting in knowing who Satoshi is. A real Satoshi has had every opportunity to come forward. Even if he's no longer alive, it's likely he worked with others who could have come forward. COPA has not pointed to direct evidence that Wright is not Satoshi.

"The reveal": Wright demonstrated his possession of some of Satoshi's private keys, in private sessions. Andresen and Matonis are well-known in the Bitcoin world.

Also demonstrated with Andrew O'Hagan. And Rory Cellan-Jones. And Ludwig [last name], see Wright1.

In each demonstration, Wright showed he had access to keys associated with early blocks. Now showing Cellan-Jones transcript of an interview. @jonmatonis says "my conclusion is that I am 100% convinced that CSW is Satoshi".

Now showing a press-release about Wright's "public reveal". Matonis makes a statement in it. Mellor is asked to read it. "The proof is conclusive, and I have no doubt that Dr Wright is the person behind …"

Matonis and Andresen being convinced is significant, says Shoosmiths. Quotes Matonis has being an official of Bitcoin Foundation, and he hasn't retracted his statement.

(Stupid credentialism)

@jonmatonis Shows Andresen saying he might have been bamboozled. But we were not shown another part of that transcript, where Andresen says he was not bamboozled about the signing session, and that he thinks it's more likely than not that Wright had the private keys.

Wright's team had made plans for a public reveal. Wright was "strongly pressed by his team to use his keys to reveal himself publicly", especially by MacGregor. Wright says MacGregor applied immense pressure on him. MacGregor also pressured Wright into a public proof, as it was against his belief that keys should not be used to prove identity.

Sartre was edited by MacGregor against Wright's consent.

After a meeting with MacGregor, Wright attempted suicide in the shower. After that, Wright destroyed the drive with the keys, due to an emotional response to MacGregor. He acted on impulse and without regard to the consequences.

COPA suggests this is not credible. They downplay the seriousness of the attempted suicide. Shoosmiths now reads from Wright1.

@jonmatonis Correction, he reads from COPA testimony, to illustrate how they downplay the seriousness of the suicide attempt.

@jonmatonis A hospital note is shown on screen, as proof that Wright was admitted. It's handwritten and not easy for me to read, but it describes what happened. "No obvious sign of bloodloss", but "shower running".

@jonmatonis Wright left a suicide note saying "I do not want to be Satoshi".

Shoosmiths reads from the hospital note again. It says Wright acted out of stress, had moved from Australia etc.

This is a contemporaneous record from a specialist nurse, so while destroying the harddrive seems incredible, it is in fact consistent with Wright's state at the time.

@jonmatonis Shoosmiths: an injunction should not be granted, breaks the convention on human rights. COPA would be free to disseminate the judgment across the world, and COPA includes Meta (I didn't follow this reasoning, sorry).

This concludes Shoosmiths' statement.

Some procedural remarks from Shoosmiths I don't understand … out of my depth. Something about Wright being allowed to rely on certain additional documents: Wright11 and Wright12. Mellor is asked to read Wright11.

Wright's response to forgery allegations: The abacus emails, about Seychelles companies, and accounting software. Shoosmiths warns that it's convoluted, so I don't think I stand a chance here.

Wright acquired the two companies in 2014. Previous docs suggest he did it years earlier. Wright11 is Wright's response to this ("effectively"). Emails about the acquisitions were manipulated to undermine his case in Kleiman. Ira Kleiman was alleging a partnership between Wright and Dave K. [This is just another case of "Ira Kleiman did it", I can't be bothered]

@jonmatonis Abacus emails: some stuff about whether an email server was hosted at Google or not. A Strauss report. Wright should be permitted to respond to COPA's allegations, hence Wright11.

@jonmatonis MYOB: COPA says the database must be forged, since they contain metadata from 2020-2023. Wright has said that MYOB updates automatically, causing updates to the database which postdates records. "This is Dr Wright's factual account", but he's not an expert.

He goes on about Wright11. Abacus invoices: incorporation of WWI and TTL. The invoices date them to 2011. Wright was sent these invoices by Mr. Mayaka in 2023. COPA said they were acquired in 2014 and that Abacus invoices are forgeries. Wright says they are authentic and wants to rely on them. A Strauss-Friedberg (sp?) report supports him.

Now he reads from a document where they say that while it may be the case that the documents should have been disclosed earlier, they didn't appreciate their importance until later.

Timecoin document: Mayaka sent Wright this in September 2023, and Wright would like to rely on it. He originally sent it to Mayaka in 2009 and Wright International was incorporated. This is an important document as it's a respond to a forgery allegation.

Two documents concern "iDaemon", which Wright says he worked on from 2013. He relies on them. He was reluctant to discuss Bitcoin with Hearn in 2016 because Hearn worked for a competitor to nChain. Their relevance was not realised until later.

Wright also wishes to rely on documents indicating BDO drive discrepancies are caused by his operating system.

Shoosmiths argues that the new material should be permitted because it will not extend the trial and Wright will be available for cross-examination.

We're finally breaking for five minutes. This heat is killing everyone.

Back in session. Some remarks from COPA.

Wright11 is unsatisfactory, it should not be admitted. It was not Wright's "first opportunity" to respond to forgery allegations. He could have done it in Wright9 at the end of December.

Abacus emails: Wright's presents an opinion on changes in DNS and DKIM. Strauss-Friedberg the email headers might provide more information; there is a gap in DNS history. To interpret the records involves the work of an expert, and there's a reason that sort of thing is done by an *independent* expert.

How could the court find the documents authentic without independent expert evidence?

Mellor asks if Madden could evaluate the evidence. COPA says they don't know how much time that would take. Mellor asks for some document, which COPA gives him. Mellor is talking about dates, trying to fit in the new evidence, talking about the possibility of adjusting the time table.

COPA goes into more detail about why the new evidence should not be admitted. Strauss-Friedberg report is problematic, does not support Wright's assertions. Strauss produced the report quickly, so why so late?

MYOB now. The "new wave of MYOB documents" are replacement documents after the first ones got exposed as forged. Now goes through the evidence that the new documents are also forged.

Wright waited for the expert to provide a report, then gave them new MYOB documents (if I understood correctly). Requires a whole new round of expert witness.

In most cases, late disclosure is not permitted. There's no indication that these late disclosures are necessary for a fair trial.

Mellor: If the docs are in response to allegations of forgery, surely it's relevant

COPA: At some point, Wright must no longer be allowed to pull rabbits out of hats.

Now goes through a storm of forgery techniques used. New material would require a series of satellite issues to be addressed. The suggestion that the material couldn't have been deployed earlier is wrong. The suggestion that they didn't appreciate the significance of this material "is wrong".

The LLM thesis has "no significance at all". Says nothing about bitcoin or cryptocurrency concepts. It's just a scan of a hard copy we already have, has been banned by both parties as being manipulated (if I heard that right!).

The iDaemon docs, an email between two at DeMorgan with an attachment, has no credibility. Wright spoke to Hearn, but Hearn says their talk was about the original features of the bitcoin system, "the signing protocol" etc. If that is right, the iDaemon docs are irrelevant.

Something about VMWare now. Wright might have used it for harddrive images. Wright asks the court to admit a set of document related to this. Wright using virtual machines is not in dispute, not relevant to admit. (Sorry this is vague, I don't quite get it)

Wright wants to admit emails to the ATO from 2013 where he says he's been working on Bitcoin. COPA says nobody disputes that these emails were sent.

Now goes into some court rules for why these things shouldn't be admitted as evidence.

Wright referred to two tweets. Something about Malmi, if I heard right. 2009-2010? But some document didn't exist until 2013 (I didn't quite follow).

Wright should restrain himself from social media for the duration of the trial (6 weeks? I don't believe he will be able to)

Developers' council now. Wright tweeted in breach of PTR. Something about the fake LaTeX documents. "The brazenness".

About relying on opinion evidence. There is no comparison to COPA's expert evidence, such as Hinnant's testimony. Wright purports to give evidence about MYOB software, doesn't provide any evidence, and is not independent.

Repeats what COPA said about Wright having had ample opportunity to respond to forgery evidence, Wright11 comes far too late.

On "fresh evidence": Mayaka frequently produces documents at the eleventh hour. Consider the bonded courier, who showed up with Wright's list of addresses instead of private key. Wright insisted under Oauth that it was genuine. That list turned out to be garbage. "Not pulling rabbits from hats, but pulling garbage from bins"

They apparently broke the protected volume. The password is "bitcoin11".

The ATO email was not about having Satoshi's keys. He shows an email on screen. Another document contains 1Feex etc, at least one of the addresses is provably not Wright's. "Absence of any basis". "A line has to be drawn". The developers are receiving endless documents from Wright.

The developer's council says they see the lawsuits as fraud, mentions a similar case that was "SLAPP".

I like this guy, he doesn't hold back. (he also speaks quickly and I missed a lot)

"Non-compliance of this kind is registered, not ignored"

Shoosmiths (Lord Grabiner) asks to address his statements. Goes into "the application of the certificate" again, this is court rule stuff I don't understand.

Developer's concil interrupts, says something about not having said that. "Best not to interrupt", says Grabiner.

Grabiner is making points as to why the fresh evidence should be admitted.

"They've had these documents since 12th of January". It will take Madden "no time at all".

Grabiner: "if Strauss doesn't help, then LET IT IN!".

"This is nonsense". If the Strauss evidence takes the court nowhere, "well then let it in". If it's let in, Wright won't be able to say that he hasn't had a fair crack of the whip.

Grabiner: they have worked out what the password is, that's brilliant (people laugh, including Wright). They had time for that, but they won't have time for the evidence?

Mellor: I'm going to refuse the application for a revised certificate, and refuse COPA's application for [what, I didn't catch it].

Grabiner seems unhappy, but I don't understand the topic.

Mellor: court is adjourned, see you tomorrow at 10:30.

Update: there's more information on this in COPA's freshly dropped 20th witness statement of Phil Nathan Sherrell. bitcoindefense.org/wp-content/upl…