Thread by @bitnorbert

COPA v Wright, the identity issue – Day 2. 🧵

Today is the first day of Wright's cross-examination, which amazingly will go on until next Tuesday. I expect there to be particular interest today, so I'll be lucky to get a seat, but I'll do my best – which involves standing in line in scorching heat for an hour outside the courtroom. 🫠

See you there!

Forgot to say – make sure to follow other reporters:
@tuftythecat
@BitMEXResearch
@AaronvanW
@369bsv (for an opposing perspective)

https://twitter.com/Arthur_van_Pelt/status/1754781331190366288

They opened early, and I'm seated! I can see @tuftythecat got a seat as well. I'm waiting for a certain friend to show up.

Court is not in session until 10:30, in an hour and 7 minutes.

@tuftythecat I have a free seat beside me, if you're quick. To your right as you enter the courtroom.

Craig is here. Full clown outfit today. Overheard: "Those shoes are offensive"

The parties have arrived and the room is buzzing. 15 minutes to go.

@AaronvanW got the free seat.

Judge Mellor enters, and we all rise. Court is in session.

Some housekeeping first. He gives reason for his decisions at the end of yesterday's session. He goes into Sherrell20 and the history of late filings affecting the time table.

"Wright11 is an extremely long document", says Mellor. COPA's objections were well-founded, but discussions among the parties to limit the scope took place. Three issues remain.

"A litigant in the position of Dr Wright" would normally be refused to add the new evidence, but "this is not in any sense a normal action".

The court would only have "a partial picture" if Wright were refused to add the new evidence. Mellor understands that COPA will need Madden to produce a new report during cross-examination, if possible. Likely will make same findings as Sherrell20.

Agrees with COPA that "a line needs to be drawn", and Wright "should consider himself extremely lucky", only permitted because of allegations of forgery. Wright is not likely to be allowed to rely on "any further documents".

Mellor says Wright11 being written in Wright's voice/own words (which is required) is "simply incorrect".

Mellor concludes that Shoosmiths cannot provide certification for Wright11. It should "remain uncertified".

Mellor reminds all giving evidence about the rules. Witnesses should "refrain from going on social media", as it might influence testimony.

"That concludes my ruling."

COPA now. Asks permission for Madden to produce a report on disputed sections of Wright11. Offers to go through the relevant matters. Mellor: "I think I'm just going to leave it [to you?]"

Can produce it by Friday 16th, given they get chain-of-custody documentation from Wright.

COPA on the publication of Wright11: refers to rules regarding whether the documents should be made available to the public. Seems to argue that the allegations in Wright11 should not be given "the oxygen of publicity" on social media. Gives a document to Mellor, asks him not to put it on the screens.

Wright makes a serious allegation against an individual, says COPA. If he is permitted to tweet it and the document is public, Wright would be protected.

"This statement is an unusual category", says COPA. Certain rules don't apply. Would be content for Wright11 to be redacted.

Grabiner for Shoosmiths now: Entirely content that Madden be allowed to produce an expert report.

Opens a thick book and refers to rules pertaining to Wright11. Grabiner is good at this.

Grabiner resists Wright11 being not published. "I'm not trying to be difficult, but that is the reality".

I think he agrees with redactions (of 17 passages), but didn't quite catch it.

A sudden break? I'll take five.

We're back. Weird pause.

Mellor says Wright11 should not be published until the parties have agreed on redaction. Mellor thanks Grabiner for being "very helpful".

Wright steps forward to the witness box. Takes an oath on a book (Bible?). "I swear, by all mighty God".

Mellor says there will be a short break every hour. Offers Wright a pen and paper. "May I have it, my Lord", asks Wright.

Grabiner asks Wright to confirm that his witness statements are true. They go through the statements one by one. (I'm seated on the wrong side of the room for viewing Wright, annoying)

Devs council reminds Grabiner that there are three statements in the "BTC Core" claim. Grabiner: "Oh, are there? How could I forget those."

Grabiner goes through them. Wright confirms that the signatures on the statements are his, and that they are true.

COPA now. Have you ever forged? No. Have you ever falsified a document in support of being Satoshi? No.

COPA plays a video. Craig is shown saying he got a document showing why he decided on being "Satoshi". He shows a document to the web camera.

Do you accept that this was an interview you gave in 2019? Wright: I gave an interview, don't remember date.

COPA shows an article from Dec 2019. Wright confirms "around that time". Was the document from JStore etc? Wright confirms.

Did the document had handwritten notes? Wright confirms.

Shows an image. Do we see the heading with the words "accessed on [date in 2017]". "I was holding up the article to reference Nakamoto's origin"

Can you accept that the numerals "08" are slightly smaller than "07"? I can. COPA shows the full document, Wright confirms it looks like the same doc. Have you always insisted it was authentic? It was a document that got into my drawer at one point, don't know who printed it.

Shows a Twitter exchange where Craig says the document is authentic. Wright doesn't recall, "my Twitter is not only myself". "I don't know if I would answer that way on Twitter."

Shows an appendix to Madden. It shows the "2008" zoomed in, showing irregularities. "08" is not aligned with "20". Wright agrees.

"11:17", the "11" and "17" are not aligned. Wright agrees.

Shows "monumenta nipponica" doc showing 2015. Wright agrees. Compares visual impression of the date and times, asks if Wright agrees. He does.

Shows Madden comparing the footer with a document from Wayback Machine. JStore footer in the document Wright held up didn't match the footer JStore used at the time.

Wright: "I can see it, but he compares different [didn't hear]" There's not a JStore database, there are different repositories. We cannot take one from one era and compare it.

COPA: no document from JStore with a footer matching has been provided. Wright disagrees. Can't discuss what has been done [didn't hear]

Wright completely disagrees with Madden. Someone worked with Ira Kleiman (Gwen? Nguyen?) The document was provided to Kleiman in 2014.

But it's from 2015? No, "my document" is older.

Wright: you wouldn't find it on the internet, because it would breach copyright.

So the doc captured in 2016 was manipulated?

Yes by Gwen (sp) to discredit me. Mentions Maxwell for some reason.

Your account is that your doc with 2018 date and misaligned numbers were the authentic one, but the one without misalignment has been manipulated?

Cheap printers cause misalignment. The font will only change if you do something to the printout (?).

Wright: "I don't know what my expert has done."

Also presented the doc to Aus stock exchange. Ira Kleiman leaked it.

Wright: a lot of my data has been lost or deleted. This came from Gwern.

COPA: It's much simpler – you forged it.

Wright disagrees, goes into some printout stuff.

Bitcoin domain and email: You claim you paid Anonymous Speech? Yes.

COPA shows Wright's "Evidence and law" article. Wright confirms he wrote it, but doesn't control it. COPA quotes from it. "I used my credit card." Wright confirms he wrote that.

So you're saying you obtained bitcoin dot org and Vistamail email with credit card payment for which you have (had?) records? I do.

Shows transcript from interview in April 2019. Wright doesn't remember it. "Proof is something simple, like a credit card statement". Wright doesn't recall it, says it was transcribed incorrectly. COPA: "We can bring up the video later"

Quotes him saying the bank has to keep statements for 25 years. Wright recalls saying it. Was the message that you paid by credit card and have records to prove it? Yes.

COPA shows an email to Jimmy Ngyen with screenshots. Wright recognizes it, says Jimmy was his legal council.

Jimmy was a colleague of yours and helped maintain your account of being Satoshi? No.

Oxford Union speech? Yes, it happened.

Is that a credit card number in the email? I don't know. It was a debit card. I was sending Jimmy what I got from Amanda … It was an old credit card.

COPA hesitates. "Was it the number of your credit card?" No it was my debit card (wtf)

Wright mentions "anonymous Reddit person".

COPA: "read naturally, it says it's your old credit card". Wright: No, I asked Jimmy to put it on [didn't hear]

Wright implies he paid with a different credit card. No, he didn't pay, but he "applied money" with his Westpac credit card.

Wright refers to a 2020 blog where he paid with WebMoney.

COPA: "the natural meaning" of the credit card statement is that he paid for it. Wright says no, story about Amanda McGovern.

COPA: you first gave this account after McGovern died didn't you? I don't discuss privileged matters in public.

Can you answer my question? Wright: it depends [on whatever]

Pressed by COPA, Wright: "I've been told not to name solicitors"

Mellor: "you should identify them":

Wright: "uhm, Jonny. Can I get back to you with the last name?"

Names Jimmy and Amanda.

Were the screenshots sent to you on Whatsapp? Yes, I only use Whatsapp. He doesn't have the message any more.

Did it come from a pseudonymous user? That's what she told me, yes.

After you received the bank statements you didn't think they were genuine, and you sent them to Jimmy to check? Wright is vague.

COPA refers to a witness statement of his, where he writes what COPA asked. Wright confirms.

COPA: If your story about the screenshots had been true, surely you would speak to Amanda about it, or the bank? He doesn't use the bank anymore. He worked with banks before [something].

COPA: as a forensic expert, why have it checked by Jimmy, who is just a lawyer?

Wright: he was required to send everything to his lawyers.

COPA: did you think the false documents were meant to help you? I don't know, a lot of people try to help me but actually harm me.

When your lawyers disclosed these documents, they didn't mention they were false and planted? I have no idea, and didn't know they were privileged.

It would have been mentioned? Some people were trying to sabotage (mentions Ira Kleiman)

W: I told my lawyers I don't know what happened:
C: Did you tell Ontier these documents were false?
W: Yes
C: And Ontier sat on this information allowing the parties to be misled?
W: I have no idea what Ontier did.

C: You're aware that Madden's report established the screenshots had to be inauthentic?
W: Not correct, Australian law allows you to access records for 25 years. I agree they're not real, but not for that reason.

C: Your solicitors recognized they were fake after that report [don't know which]
W: I have no idea
W: The purchase was made by Westpac card, in evidence. I don't have the WebMoney account, company in liquidation.

C: You claimed in April 2019 you had credit card records
W: Yes, at that point the company had not liquidated
C: Then you sent an email to Jimmy representing the docs as genuine?
W: No
C: You disclosed the docs in these proceedings to back up your claim?
W: No such claim has been made

C: The story is just a lie, isn't it?
W: No, it isn't.

Mellor reminds us that a break is coming.

COPA refers to a footnote in the witness statement. A document is shown, it's a proof of purchase of bitcoin dot org.

W: No, it's not. That's the wrong document, it should not be there. It should have been an image of [something]

Short break now.

A lawyer came over and told me "everyone's enjoying it". I think he's with the devs. Go me!

We're back in session.

C: You do recall now how you purchased the domain name?
W: With the card associated with a WebMoney account, don't remember which.
C: Shows Wright4. Quotes, "I don't recall how I paid". In October last year you couldn't remember?
W: I used one of the cards, I don't recall which one. Could be WebMoney directly, or one of a number of Visa or MasterCard

C: You said you don't remember from a whole range of payment methods.
W: Let me give you an analogy. If I use Wise, that doesn't mean I remember which payment account I used a year later.
C: You said you had the records to prove it, and it conveniently fell out of your access.
W: No, the company went bankrupt.

C: Quotes Wright saying someone saw the records. Mr. Cohen? No written record, right?
W: Right
C: Would be easy to get an Ontier report?
W: Everyone tells me not to waive privilege.
C: This wouldn't waive privilege.
W: Not what I've been advised
C: Just another fiction.
W: No, it isn't.

C: Four videos show you accessing Vistamail in 2019
W: No, it was a different account
C: You continued using free Vistamail?
W: Yes
C: Videos date from June 2019
W: Yes

C: Do you see footer with copyright [something]-2019?
W: Yes.
C: Shows video with passport held up. Issue date of 2010. Shows report saying the footer wouldn't have been in use after 2009.
W: I'm aware of it.
C: If you had accessed it in 2019, it wouldn't have shown this footer?
W: Actually it would have. Madden hadn't logged in, and the footer looks like that when you don't log in.

C: No evidence for the court of this.
W: Because they closed down.
C: There's no captures of the Wayback Machine
W: There can't be. [Addresses Mellor about logged-in state not being archived on Wayback Machine, I think]

W: You're trying to argue accessing Wayback Machine and modifying that. Internal data isn't captured. Not sure what your point is.
C: You recorded separate videos showing separate pages because you weren't accessing a live site.
W: No, I was. I was asked by my attorney to do it.

W: I would have to move my phone around if I was going to capture only one video.
C: Agree that this is something someone would do if you were going to fake a video?
W: No, what you would do is [explains]

Says he gave access credentials to Ontier lawyers.

COPA shows a transcript, he's asked if he tried to log into Vistamail. He says no because he hasn't logged in for ages and Vistamail requires payment. [Reads from transcript]

C: You were saying the site was no longer accessible since 2013?
W: No, I said the Satoshi emails were no longer accessible.

W: I couldn't access the original Satoshi emails.
C: You didn't draw that distinction in the transcript?
W: No, I was very upset and reacted badly.

COPA shows another doc, from 2019. It asks for a copy of all Satoshi emails in the account. Request is overbroad, and he no longer has access to those accounts.

C: Your position in Kleiman is that you didn't have access at all, not only certain parts.
W: I no longer had access to the Satoshi emails, and was being "ridiculously difficult, I'm not doing that in this trial, your honor … My lord"
C: So you didn't tell the whole truth?
W: I wasn't asked that question

COPA shows a DeMorgan doc about Project BlackNet (wp precursor).

C: You say many people had access to this particular copy. Had been copied from DeMorgan server in 2002. Madden shows it was created in 2014. Agree?
W: Disagree.

C: It's from 2002?
W: It was filed with [someone] in 2002, was available to a variety of staff, at least 300. It's what we now call MetaNet.
C: It was created in PDF form in 2014, wasn't it?
W: I don't know when it was created. The original was a doc or something else, was converted to PDF, don't know

C: You just told us you weren't sure when it was created. Here you assert with confidence that it's a 2014 doc.
W: No, I know when the doc was created. The PDF is a printout. If I scan or convert a doc, I still have the doc.
C: The chain-of-custody is for this particular custody.
W: The doc was materially the same

C: So when you said the copy is from 2002, you're now saying that something materially the same is from 2002?
W: I'm saying there are copies that have 2002 metadata. This document is the same formatting, the same everything else.

COPA quotes an abstract, it has a series of details from the bitcoin wp.

W: Tim May had an idea for an encrypted secure internet. Cryptocreds is the equivalent of bitcoin. Tim and others believed the system needed to be anonymous, I don't. It needs to be pseudonymous.

C: Reading this abstract, you would think this abstract is about a transaction system without a central intermediary.
W: The transaction system is about more than just money. In May 2009, Martti Malmi started working on Bitcoin because he wanted to do exactly this.

C: But this is talking about transactions.
W: You don't understand what a transaction means. When I send an email, that is technically a transaction. If you don't have economic cost, how do you stop attacks? The biggest attacks are not economic. I've been working on that asymmetry for years.

COPA quotes from BlackNet.

C: This part of the paper is about security in a business network.
W: No. We take a binary tree structure of the logs and we embed them over time. With Tripwire you can't do it remotely. With a timestamp server we can have every change analyzed.

C: Can I just pause you there? We need to make some progress. The abstract talks about transactions, and this talks about IT security.
W: No, you're monitoring transaction strings. The example is the click (quick?) fraud I talked to Microsoft about. Expensive for attacker.

C: it says nothing about a pseudonymous transaction system, does it.
W: The whole point of HashCash was to prevent spam. All of these are actually in there.
C: Just pause there. Up to section [x] it's just about standard IT security.
W: No. None of [standard IT security practice] is done this way. Talks about package routing. Australia is big, like Europe. We needed a peer network to send transactions between people making bids and orders.

Wright goes on about networking in Australia.

C: Let me stop you there.
W: Sorry, I like my system.

Craig mentions EDDSA sigs. In a security situation, logs get changed. This was an immutable log server.

C: Can I just pause you there, you're going slightly off subject.

C: There's no reference to BlackNet in the budget, is there.
W: No, this was first stage.
C: Stage 3, for BlackNet and the transaction system
W: We were asking for a 12 month grant.
C: It was the final stage, wasn't it?
W: No, it was very early. [Spyder project?]

COPA shows an MS Word doc, October 2002.

W: There were multiple versions of this document.
C: Version control indicates it's the same version.
W: No, it just means we haven't updated it.
C: So you're saying version control is wrong.
W: No, [didn't catch it]

Shows an abstract.

C: They look the same.
W: Yes.
C: The difference is that the sections concerning transaction system is present in one and not the other
W: Yes, it's an incomplete version. Earlier version.
C: Let me suggest the reason that the authentic document doesn't have the transaction system is that it was added later, same as stage 4 in the other doc.
W: No, stage 4 was added later. Grant, not tax rebate.

COPA shows a transcript. Craig is asked about BlackNet filing.

C: You were saying parts of "crypto credits" go back to 2002.
W: The original project that led to Bitcoin was started around then. Maybe 2001, but nothing complete. Lazarus from 1999 etc, all got rolled into it. Based on DEC code, changed over time.

Wright repeats that the stage 4 doc is incomplete.

COPA shows AusIndustry filing. Shows an application form, Project Spyder, says nothing about digital currency, crypto credits or transactions.

Craig explains details about the application process, this was the first stage

COPA shows application in stage 3. Various related docs are shown, getting technical.

C: Nothing about crypto credits here.
W: BlackNet is an encrypted network with crypto credits. I didn't forge a document, and actually you are wrong. [goes into various versions]

Shows Integyrs doc, Project Spyder 1.1 from March 2009. Version control shows 2nd version.

Wright says he didn't update the date, it's 2009.

C: It's about IT security and firewalls
W: No, you're ignoring [something]. To file for an r&d project, it must be new, not done before.

W: The doc was "leading to BlackNet integration". The Spyder project integrated with BlackNet.

Mellor: We'll break now.

Lord Grabiner: this is not a great demonstration of the process. There's no air in the room, it's intolerable.

Mellor: I've raised identical points. Can we move to another room? Something has been shut down. We'll monitor progress. Won't be able to move soon.

Grabiner and Mellor jokes and we laugh.

Lunch break!

I've been told I don't promote my LN address enough. If you would like to tip me a bit for my work, and cover some of my expenses while I'm here, I'm on [e-mail].

We're back in session after a welcome lunch break.

COPA goes right ahead.

Asks about email to Jimmy Nguyen. It was a debit card? Yes, tied to a home load.

C: It was a credit card, but a debit card canceled in 2005.
W: No, we stopped using the card around then.

COPA shows an NAB statement from 2008. Same card number as in email. It has a credit limit. It's for a VISA credit card?

W: No, it's a debit card tied to a home load.
C: Still in use in 2008?
W: No, would have been paid off.

COPA refers to a line in the statement. The card number has the same first and last 4 digits. The payment is dated in December 2009. Described as NAB Visa credit card.

C: You're wrong to deny it was an actively used credit card?
W: No, my wife used it, we'd been told [by who?] to use it.

C: You said you canceled it!
W: We still had the home loan.
C: You said the Vistamail was still available in 2009, just not Satoshi's emails. And you couldn't film with your phone without making two videos.

Wright agrees.

COPA shows one of Wright's videos, showing the Satoshi email part.

W: No, it's not. This is just where you had the email account.
C: I have to suggest this is just more fiction to explain earlier fiction. [Plays rest of video, showing inbox, spam box etc]

Mellor asks Wright something. Wright talks about having ability to send new email, just didn't have access to old mails.

C: You said the Satoshi email system wasn't available.
W: No, just the Satoshi emails.

COPA plays another video of "Satoshi's" email. He moved the mouse around.

W: Yes, I was able to do it, I just didn't like to.

C: As in all the other videos, you were careful not to show the address bar [of the browser]
W: No I wasn't.

COPA shows a Wright tweet, "My stupidest mistake …". The screenshot shows a doc referring to p2p networking, taken from Bitcoin wp.

W: It's from BlackNet paper. [Mentions Adam Back] Adam was referring to remailers etc. Bitcoin wasn't designed to be just money. As others like Martti Malmi knows, it was an ordering system [etc]

COPA shows the Bitcoin wp abstract. COPA points out similarities. Wright acknowledges.

Craig says he had multiple versions, "I don't have a linear way of working".

C: BlackNet contains changes made to Bitcoin wp between 2008 and 2009.
W: No. I don't have a linear way of working. [Refers to his LLM thesis] Sometimes I change a lot of things and go back to the original. I quite often do that.

COPA shows a witness statement from Wright (I think). Early versions did not contain abstract from wp, later did.

Wright agrees.

W: You have this assumption that I write something and then don't reuse it. [Refers to emails to Gavin Andreesen and Martti Malmi]

Wright says there was a mashup of different document. He's not plagiarizing, just reusing his own work.

"I'm better at code than words", says Wright.

Wright gets more agitated. The "My biggest mistake" tweet was about an ongoing project for ten years. They are real documents and real government filings.

C: Will you accept now that if you're right, this was misleading?
W: No, I have worked on this for a decade. I have spent well over fifteen years of my life, fighting, doing 30 degrees, filing papers, at the expense of my family. No, that's not misleading.

COPA shows a DeMorgan document.

C: Does it match the one in the tweet?
W: [Agrees the abstracts look the same]
W: What you have on the screen is not the abstract of the wp.
C: But you said earlier.
W: Yes, verbatim. That isn't the abstract. Sorry, you're mistaken.

W: They're clearly different
C: *Your* document says later versions contain the abstract to the bitcoin wp.
W: Yes, and this isn't the abstract. Can you show me where? *BITCOIN* abstract. I did not say what you're saying.

COPA looks up the claim. BlackNet abstract was copied from Bitcoin wp. Your BlackNet paper, supposedly produced long before 2008, contains [the abstract].

W: As I just said, in 2001 it didn't contain *the Bitcoin abstract*. That's what the witness statement says.

W: One of the versions I filed contained the Timecoin paper.
C: The project paper cited Lynn Wright as an author. She didn't know what BlackNet was, did she.
W: She did.
C: So when she testified she didn't [in Kleiman], she lied?
W: No, she had cancer, was heavily sedated, was on opiods, wasn't happy about the interview.

COPA shows a document, says it had metadata dating it to 2002 (I think). On asked if it would help his case of having invented Bitcoin, Wright agrees it would support his BlackNet claims.

COPA shows how it was backdated, formatting that didn't exist until 2007 (Madden, I think).

As is tradition, fonts have been used which didn't exist at the time. Used a version of Word from 2015.

C: This was backdated, wasn't it?
W: No, it wasn't.

Shows Project Spyder doc. Dated to 2002.

C: Madden finds no signs of authenticity, OK?
W: Mhm.
C: Are you just very unfortunate [regarding signs of inauthenticity]
W: No, I'm very fortunate [something about Adam Back] BlackNet leads to Bitcoin. Nobody can find problems with claims that BlackNet lead to Bitcoin.

Grabiner interjects, says the forgery allegations are not in the schedule. COPA defends themselves, explains.

Mellor responds, hard to hear him. Something about giving latitude. COPA thanks him.

COPA shows an email. Madden found a number of anomalies. From-header wasn't properly formatted, was text that had been entered in. Recipient was also badly formatted, suggesting manipulation. Internal timestamps suggest July 2020. A 2015 version of Outlook was used to write the email. Metadata included a field indicative of editing, nine years after the supposed creation date.

A late creation backdated document.

W: I wouldn't say that. I don't use Outlook.

Grabiner repeats his objection.

COPA shows a Timecoin reliance doc.

W: I don't agree it's a *primary* reliance document.
C: But you were asked to nominate primary documents.
W: Solicitors did that, I just signed off.
C: It's a simple question: do you rely on these documents?
W: [hesitates, being vague] Do you mean do I still stand by these documents? Well, I'm not sure I can answer that.

C: Timecoin is a name you claim to have given Bitcoin before the wp?
W: Before and after.
C: If it's real, it would support your claim to be Satoshi?
W: Not necessarily. [It was used and accessed by many people] The anomaly would be finding a document that *hasn't* been changed.

C: Madden found this document has a Grammarly-encoded timestamp from 2020. Placks agree it's backdated. Do you?
W: No. That timestamp comes from open Grammarly in certain ways. Someone has opened the document without [saving it?].
C: Wouldn't happen simply by opening the doc.
W: When you save the document with Grammarly, that tag is not included.

C: Madded found embedded pictures suggesting it was created in a later version of Word and converted back to an earlier version. Indicates backdating?
W: No. [Goes into some technical vaguery about LaTeX etc] Categorically no way that you can simulate what the expert has stated.

COPA shows a document supposedly drafted by Lynn Wright. Was stored on a CD at DeMorgan etc, sent to nChain in 2016.

W: CDs would be replaced due to media lifetime. The document was from 2008, when it was written to CD I don't know.

C: Madden finds a number of difficulties with your account. Structure of odt/docx files. This was not created from an OpenOffice file.
W: I mentioned LaTeX (he pronounces the X)
C: You refer to OpenOffice.
W: And LaTeX.

W: If someone opened the document at nChain and looked at it, that would add the Grammarly timestamp. Not the home version, but the enterprise version. I suggest Madden has never tried the enterprise version.

C: Do you recall posting a version of this document to Slack in 2020?
W: Something like that
C: [Something about Grammarly timestamps]

C: Madden has found this was likely created from a docx file, and that such a file is attached to your Slack post on January 2020. Is that an extraordinary coincidence?
W: No, it's extraordinary bad analysis. Madden has a bias. [Missed his explanation, goes on about LaTeX etc]

Now goes into chain of custody of the CD. Wright says it's just a file that's periodically written to a CD.

C: It's a matter for the Judge to interpret the chain-of-custody.
W: It specifies a virtual CD, an ISO image. Not as Madden has incorrectly analyzed.
C: The Grammarly timestamp shared the date you shared the actual document [something]

Wright disagrees.

We are taking a break.

Back.

C: You said Lynn was practically unfit to give evidence. She was asked if she was fit and said yes.
W: I think it's a silly question to ask someone on opiods.

COPA shows a Wright document re Bitcoin being small-world etc.

C: Madden studied the raw data of the doc, in RLE format. He concluded the equation was created using MathType from 2017. Do you agree the timestamp was manipulated?
W: He said it was inauthentic.

Placks agreed that it had been manipulated.

W: My understanding is that it has been changed at some time.

COPA shows another small-world network doc ("Ultrafast consensus in small-world networks"), not by Wright. Quotes from the doc. Striking similarity between the two papers.

C: Your paper was created by taking this paper and inserting references to Bitcoin.
W: No, it wasn't.

COPA points out missing references in Wright's paper, I think pointing towards plagiarism.

C: It's a lift, isn't it, Dr Wright?
W: No. When I look at papers, I make my own notes. I sometimes copy people's work, but they don't end up in papers.

Craig acknowledges he "used" the "Ultra-fast" article, it was one of his primary ways of getting to Bitcoin.

Now a paper on game-theory relating to Bitcoin. It contains the same references as another paper.

Last saved date in 2008. Embedded text contained a date/time reference relating to Lynn in 2008. [Somehow this indicates backdating, I'm not following]

Wright disagrees, including with his own expert, Plack.

W: We used a combination of virtual machines and Citrix servers.

C: All your nonspecific hearsay is up against both experts.
C: Are you suggesting they're not independent?
W: I don't see them as particularly independent.
C: Don't you see your own expert as independent?
W: No, I didn't choose him. He's a psychologist.

C: Is Dr Placks not a suitably independent expert?
W: If you're asking me directly, then yes.

COPA shows a document:

C: Do you agree this is one of your primary reliance documents?
W: It's one of my reliance documents, yes.

Creation date in 2007, last saved 2008. Revision number 2. It's unusual to work on a doc in over 400 days and save it only twice?

W: No, not when you work on a Citrix server. Just leave it running.

Madden found formatting inconsistent with the Office version.

W: The toold I used, he hasn't actually looked at. They have done that since the nineties.
C: The reality is that as he finds, these equations were created in docx format, and then imported into this document, weren't they?
W: No, that's incorrect.

W: The software has been around since at least 1998 saves as XML [something], I used it as an auditor. You're saying this is unusual – well, all of my tools are unusual.

W: If Madden had actually done his job, he would run a Citrix machine and leave a document open. The application keeps the edit time right.

C: Madden suggests the computer clock was manipulated.
W: Actually no. I've been running Citrix servers since '97 or so, when it was a different product. So no.

Another document, something about "BitCoin" ostensibly from 2008. Last saved December 2008.

Quotes from the doc. A section is called "What is BitCoin?" Says it will launch in 2009.

Doc has 4 references, newest from 2005.

Madden found remnant version embedded, where everything is in past tense ("Bitcoin was launched in 2009" etc).

Madden concluded someone changed the document to suggest it was pre-Bitcoin.

C: That's correct, isnt it?
W: No. It's a shared environment with a different file, research has been merged, [something pertaining to ATO]. If someone were to forge a document, they wouldn't have an embedded remnant version like this. If I were to forge a document, it would be perfect.

C: The evidence suggests you're not that good with forgeries.
W: I don't forge. I have had many companies, we do research. Now many patents. None of them could have come from copying and pasting.
C: How were the histories merged?
W: Someone probably had both versions open simultaneously.
C: That doesn't happen. If you had a process of incidental corruption, it would be extraordinary that it would look like the real thing, but looking ahead at what became Bitcoin.
W: It would be an immense anomaly to find a group of documents with no anomalies, I've never seen that before.

[I missed one question – Wright is being very very vague now, and COPA is incredulous.]

W: There's an edit that hasn't happened correctly, and [something strange]
C: A document that opens perfectly readably [but contains edits from the future]
W: [Mentions Dan Kaminsky] found hash collision in MD5 by embedding extra text.

COPA shows another document.

W: They're unrelated.
C: The 2013 version was removed because it would be anachronistic to a document from 2008.
W: No. [Something about ATO]
C: All the changes are to remove references to Bitcoin, and removing things that date it to much after 2008. That's not accidental, is it?
W: Again, I don't know how the change happened. These are two different documents. How they were merged I can't say.

SSRN document. The same argument from yesterday about being uploaded in 2019 vs. being written in 2008.

Wright more or less agrees he wrote it. But other people handled SSRN and stuff.

Shows the text is the same as the remnant version, "was launched in 2009".

Madden notes it's a Word document, later conversion.

W: Yeah, once again I don't use the Word tools.
C: He found a whole series of equations that were corrupted. Classic signs of a conversion error, not using a different and carefully chosen tool.
W: Hmm, I disagree on that one.
C: So you chose a tools specifically to put the equations in and it left junk?
W: What I do know is obviously someone has added [something]

References to Grammarly which was released in 2009.

W: It does [contain signs]. Like I said – shared environment.

Wright repeats that someone opened the document and that changed it. Denies again that he has manipulated them.

Wright has added "need to thank Ignatius Pang" to a "precursor" wp. Experts agree it was added later. Wright disagrees.

Another precursor. It's a logging system, according to Wright.

The paper talks about infectious diseases. References to Bitcoin. Small-world network.

COPA pulls up a small-world research article, not Wright's. He quotes text that is very similar to Wright's.

W: Yes, I used their work when [something].

One reference in this article is from 2012. Years after Wright's document.

Shows another section that is about identical to Wright's article. "I*m putting to you that they are virtually identical from each other."

W: I took their work for my research. I didn't publish it.
C: They're almost word-for-word identical.
W: Almost isn't …
C: It's a word-for-word copy, isn't it Dr Wright?
W: Yes, I took other people's work [something … this sounds bad]

C: You just happened to have pre-publish versions of these documents?
W: I studied at a university that specializes in epidemiology. So, yes, researchers share. I used other people's papers. If people ask me for papers, I send them mine too.

C: So you had pre-publication versions years before?
W: This was published first in China.
C: In English or Chinese?
W: English.
C: The pre-publication papers, did you ever show them to anyone?
W: No.
C: So the explanation for this remarkable similarity is that you had pre-publication copies not only of this paper, but of 4 of the 5 references in it.

W: I engaged a lot of people and handled lots of papers. It can take years before publication …
C: The argument before court is that you have a pre-publication version not only of the paper, but 4 of the 5 papers cited in it.
W: I have the paper where they cited that. other Chinese people … academics, also share.

We're breaking for five minutes. I need to process this, it's insane. It's just insane.

Back.

C: The document was created by you, forged by you, backdated by you.
W: No, it was not.

Pulls up a doc from University of Newcastle. Not a reliance doc, but pleaded as forgery.

It's a Word document with last-mod date 2005. There's a description, talks about "rounds" which Wright says is what is now called "blocks".

COPA shows similarities to the Bitcoin wp – Madden found text had been copied from it into this document and then edited. Wright disagrees. He pasted it from a precursor document, which he hasn't shared. He thinks the document doesn't exist anymore.

C: If that's right, then before 2005 you had a document that found their way word-for-word into the whitepaper. Would you say that?
W: Yes, I would.
C: And you had this document on your system in 2005.
W: Not sure exactly, but 5 or 6, yes.
W: I don't consider this as a draft of the Bitcoin wp.

W: This is previous work I was doing. Many calculations are the same.

COPA refers to linebreak that has been copied from the Bitcoin wp.

Another uni document: No reference to Bitcoin or blockchain. Wright agrees it's an actual statistics assignment from 2005.

Madden found embedded content in the previous document reflecting content in this genuine document.

C: Madden concludes the document referring to Bitcoin was produced by editing the genuine university document. That's the natural conclusion, isn't it?
W: That's what he states.
C: But that's the natural conclusion.
W: No.

Wright goes into the assignment document, explaining how the assignments and projects work at university.

C: This document assumes the reader knows something about your Timechain?
W: It's incomplete.
W: A statistician should be able to work out what it's talking about.

C: How would a statistician uninformed about your Timechain project know about the different chains (PoW/longest chain)?
W: Binomial random walk, state-based system, state table, arrows, probabilities

C: They would need to understand the system.
W: No, the process can stand alone. A process can be modeled without understanding [something]. So that's actually incorrect.

[This back and forth goes on]

C: The natural explanation is that this is another forgery to try to support your narrative of having produced the Bitcoin system years before.
W: No.

The processor named has said he doesn't recognize this paper at all. Will you accept that?

W: No. He noted that I was a Master's student [something]

This concludes this court day. Thanks for reading!