Thread by @369bsv

7th of February 2024

Day 3 of #CSW VS #COPA

I am sat in the court room with 10 minutes to go before Judge Mellor enters the court room.

Craig it in an all black suit and black shoes with bright red laces and the standard signature red socks. If someone doesn't start a Satoshi Shoes NFT Collection I'm going to be very disappointed. It sounds silly but from today I'm going to take pictures of his shoes because I'm sure he has a larger collection of shoes then bitcoin and he has over a million of them in the satoshi wallets lol

Today I'm feeling full of energy and good vibes.
Im sure today will be a difficult day of cross-examinations but so far Craig has been dodging Copa attacks like neo from matrix dodging bullets.

I don't mean that in that he is evading the questions I mean that in the way that every question Copa throw at him he has a precise and technical answer and he has even on a few occasions told the "expert witnesses" how to actually do there job properly.

it hasn't come across in a ego way more of a matter of fact type of way. the usher give the no phones and no tea or coffee warning. Judge mellor is about to step out of chambers and we will all stand and bow.

Whos ready for DAY 3. I cant wait....

sorry for shilling myself but if you would like to make a donation to the court reporting all donations are welcomed at

HANDCASH: $CSWCourtReporter

or BSV address: 1JtSXrCnthcH5vGqsfZnXeyV69mntwwpHG

The judge says that we have won the competition for the hottest court and say we will move to a court soon which is 4degrees colder.
the judge says good morning to craig and now the copa lawyer starts to ask about craigs expressed opinion on Dr platts qualifications and now they go threw his qualifactions

They have on screen Dr platts qualifactions and he says Craig is wrong for saying he's not a professional and craig says he is not. he says the PhD he hold is only for analysing lying on chats and the two tests he did he failed as his methodology didn't actually work.

Craig says he has no certifaction in sitrix and has no experience in meta data system SAN OR NAS

copa say he has 20 years of experience and craig says yes he is NOT QUALIFIED. they bring up Mr Spencer Lynch Cv

they now read out spencer lynch qualifications of on his C.V and he asks if spencer lynch is an expert and craig says no he is not a expert.

Craig says this is the reason the us government set up a minimal level of certification and craig says he doesn't even meet the us government's lowest certification of the us government and the judge why doctor wright didn't point his lawyers in the right direction for a credible expert and craig says travers refused to allow the experts he suggested as experts and they picked their own

they move onto the next document i think craig handled that well. They provide a new reliance document oof a predecessor document to bitcoin. It discusses how bitcoin will move away from susidary model and move into a fee model which and craig says he was very wrong on his prediction that 90% of earning would be threw fees.

Craig talks about lose income from recovering a nodes that refuses to abide by the law. the honest node could take legal action even if there was 51% attack and that bitcoin was never designed to be out of the law and when he said data and server farms. when its ends in a server farm the fact nodes can hide is completely diminished and he disagrees with the lawyer assertion

lawyer says it about moving for subsidy to fee. craig says the fee based system can be attack by a dishonest node could double spend and the bitcoin white paper say honest nodes can never take a dishonest block.

craig says the miner that are impacted the ones that are taken out the game because if they had 40% honest nodes verses a 51% dishonest the honest people and actors can take action and protect the node infrasture via the courts

the lawyer says that the bitcoin white says it is honest by design. and craig says honest and dishonest terminology was learn early and that the honest nodes never follow.

He says that the the original design of bitcoin is built so the fees take over the subsidiary and craig says that bitcoin not bitcoin core and he talks about btc creating scarcity of blocks so the fees go higher and they want btc to be 1000s of dollars per transaction and he says when you limit nothing and the block size can grow that thousth of a cent if you can do million of transaction that fee becomes extremely valuable.

he says in the attack model the fee is static. if you dishonest you cannot win because over the extended period time people can take action. they can get emergency injunction with 24 hours to stop bad actors and that attacks can be stopped instantly.

the lawyer say the existence of protections is hardcoded into bitcoin and craig says show me where it says that. if the attacker can just keep going because they have months but if there is 100 block limits it cant be done

the judge asks a question how you identify nodes in bitcoin. and craig says about how if you have 3 large actors that have about 20% that holds the people who need to be honest accountable to the law

2nd question... is a dishonest actor someone who doesn't follow the rules. and craig says you take the hardcoded rules and follow them and give examples of rules including. if you have cricket club the rules cant exclude British law. and the lawyer says the white doesn't say anything about large actors being taken to injunction and craig says it doesn't matter as everything follows the law

They talk about mr maddens reports on finding multiple zip files and placks agreed that the document is back dated.

craig disagree. he says the lawyer thinks its all about meta data and that none of the evidence is from him personally and all the documents they have are all files available to staff members and he give those ideas so his staff can flesh out his idea.

He says these original of the 300 white paper 1900 origin idea papers and he's lists thousands of other documents and says he has never claimed these documents are a time capsule

craig is aware of all the questions the lawyer asks him regarding his reliance document and talks about how he knew the documents had meta data sharing issues and craig in the klimen case said the documents were all taken from business systems

craig says that at no point did he say this was about meta data he said these are the origins and how bitcoin came about not a meta data record of proof. as that impossible on public sharable data banks

he say the difference between fake and doctored is intent. if a document is changed that is representative of fraud its representative of the healthy sharing in a work environment of documents he declared they wasn't fake because they are not faked.

craig says that he sumised the document and lynn wright wrote them and he said in his years of working in tech he say never seen a file older then 5 years that has exactly the same meta data that is the oddity if you did find that

he asks if the white paper meta data is pristine and he says the one embedded in the block is pristine. he asks which white paper as there is one of many he list about 6 and he refers to the fact that the white paper is not interacted with as its downloaded fresh every new time

he says that craig made no suggestion they was altered and craig says altered is wrong used is correct and he says if you look at those meta data changes you can see if other laptops that are not his, data servers and many others so if they check the user of the meta data change

they move on to madden report about hidden text remnants and he doesn't understand why the hyperlink doesn't relate to the document it was on and craig doesn't understand and the lawyer says its consistent of a clumsy error and craig says its consistent of someone not saving the document properly on sitrix

again craig says the lawyer is wrong and that he has tested this that the templates even when you don't save will change the data especially when you have linux as a back end rather the windows and he says that the experts have no experience in sitrix and they cant comment again he try to say its forgery and craig say no it not again

they a document which was drafted by csw and drafted in 2008. the meta save dates are from the 5th of 2008 and madden say that the edit time 83000 minutes where as the difference between the created and last save time was 2300minutes and so he says that show computer manipulation and craig says x copy can be manipulated timestamps and that tool was release before time stamp is false. he again says the experts are not experts and give more evidence about why the experts are wrong

Mr madden identifed another version in its redundant space and also found a article economic security on his median. again the the copa lawyer makes a mistake on the dates which the judge corrects him on. a median article with a tin foil hat on and the meme seems a little crazy is on screen lol

the bring a article up of a comparison of face value document, redundant draft and median hosted blog. and he asks if the document are different craig agrees

he talks about how lynn wright wrote a lot of the documents for craig from his transcripts or voice notes and then lynn wright

craig says lynn edits the face value document and he doesn't know which staff member edited the current documents and there is specific issues with the text of pre current and post context. i will, I am, I did etc

again they look at the comparison and describes it in the context of a system that is currently operating and craig says the idea was out and before it was even launched people was already say why it would fail before its released threw peer reviews

the lawyer basically says Craig your a lawyer and fraud isn't that right. craig obviously says no

they discuss the document and again the lawyer checks if craig can read with a about 10 yes answers from from craig on what he can and cant see on the documents and then on the gotcha bitch moment craig says. nooo ihe does not turn away from the documents original subject of bitcoin

they start talking about tech that is above my pay grade lol and talks about a book madden found online and asks if this paper has the same sentence as the sentence in craig papers. craig says he grabbed as much information as he can when you are pre grade you get as much info as possible for research when your post grade your creating as much info as possible for others. and now they compare the hoftstade book equations comparison from craigs work

he says he typed in equation 1 because he hadn't done the question yet and he says craigs copied part where from the 5th version from 2016 as the previous editions of this book don't hold passages 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 in the earlier books.

lawyer says its a fairy story and craig says if Mr madden had actually done his research he would of seen the truth. this document was NOT on the list of proposed forgeries.
he again says a mistake by Mr madden is not a mistake of him and then schools the lawyer of the technical aspects and the lawyer moves on to the next document again.

this doc is a reliance document of craig and a proposed fake by copa. again talking about honest and dishonest attackers. and ask if it is comparable to section 11 of the white paper

they say the meta data has a date from 2008 july and Mr madden say in paragraph 24 the meta data say version 2.4 open office that wasn't released until weeks after the white paper date. so couldn't be proposed if it hasn't been released

he says if you change the version of linux you can keep your data safe because hackers will use a standized system setup to gain access so if its different to the standard its a lot harder to be hacked

the lawyer say that he changed the meta data as a demonstration to other students on how to do it. craig says he has done that with many as a education point.

the lawyer says he will come back to that point after the break and he says the reason you was altering meta data is to demonstrate it to students. he said one time he did that but not every time and advises of other times unrelated to students practical lesson

last question. he says its beggers belief that satoshi would change the meta data to show students. and again craig says I'm pseudonymous not anonymous. governments knew who he was he was private. he says its absurd to think satoshi wanted to stay pseudonymous by showing students and craig says some of those students ended up working for him so the sharing of information was an excellent thing

court ends for a shot break we will return in 10 minutes or so...

They discuss the difference between setting and manipulating. manipulation definition is that he created it and changed for a nefarious purposes craig says altered as a training or education exercise. and if he created it with a certain meta data that's not changing that's creation

non spare random graphs document from reliance is put on the screen. again they go into the meta data from 2008 and the document presents analysts of bitcoin theory. Mr madden says in paragraphs 4 to 7 the period of the internal data exceeds the amount of time for the last save date which appears to be a manipulation and find office schemer from 2010 after the supposed authorship. says its fraud. craig says nop its a share access file and madden has never taken sitrix course and doesn't understand sitrix. get a sitrix expert and this can all be explained

laywer say its been converted and craig says no if you converted it wouldn't come out this way and then explains how it would come out if he tried to manipulate it in the way the lawyer is saying. the lawyers your wrong moving on. oops another wrong reference from the lawyer. the heat must be getting to him Lol

a hand written manuscript document the lawyer says cant be analysed and craig says it can and has been analysed to be an old document. the lawyer quickly pivots and says please don't reveal privileged information that's not been admitted.

again the lawyer confirms all the details of the document saving himself for his gut punch final question that has been tried repeatedly.

craig says he's not a expert in cryptocurrency he's an electronical cash expert and again says it could of been updated and he said it was with employees not a home computer and the 2008 document he wrote was from 2008 and he says are these authentic to 2008 and he's says if you used the forms of dating the lawyers are using cant be authentic to 2008 because they are all susceptible to change threw staff members at the companies

shoosmith object and the judge tell bird to MOVE ON.

mr madden found hidden embedded text and the dates are 2011 and 2018 and he's says the obvious inference is its been edited to give the impression that was drafted before bitcoin and again he says it was a document that was used by others and he has never said any changed. the lawyer makes the same mistake 4 times 😂😂😂😂😂thinks north humbria is in Australia and not newcastle lol lawyer are not good at geography clearly

again confirm the alleged times and dates of the creation of a document and gets him into a yes commitment so he can try to drop a bomb on the dates specific later on. but ill predict the document has 15 years of shared company access and says about Grammarly meta data again. i would guess the Grammarly issue is the difference between commercial and public versions. he also says about types of font that wasn't available pre 2012 and craig agrees with all

lawyer says you editted it didnt you. craig say the papers was forenisically tested and they was confirmed to be older then 5 years. the lawyer quickly shuts that info down as they info is not available to the court. hmmmm interesting how apparently the manuscripts hold no weight yet the ink and papers has an age older then 5 years.

he explains how the companys documents sharing system can implement changes without the user actually changing the document and he then explains to the judge exactly how it works and brings Grammarly up again and Mr madden didn't use the enterprise version of Grammarly. basic errors. copa dispute the Grammarly issue but do not confirm if Mr madden used the free or the enterprise version for this investigation

lynn would correct any errors from craigs voice to text speeches. craigs methodology was wrote down he had many ways of recording his documents and he didn't make a recording of the specific was of recording the document. do you make evidence that you used word when making a word document? I'm sure anyone does?

they now have a slack version up and AGAIN copa make an error on the date of the document. these errors are very very silly errors.

craig agrees with all the assertions made by the lawyer about the document and says the natural conclusion drawn from Mr madden that the documents times don't match and the handling of the documents was great as the expert can find pointer to a specific lawyer and for those to be accept but not confirm the multiple usage of document is very disingenuous

another slack post of two photos of a document and the lawyer says the document dated from 2007 and craig said there would be documents like the one at north humbria and this and his research are how you prove.

You can see a non business version of Grammarly and craigs personal version is the normal version. he doesnt have a nchain laptop so doesnt have the enterprise version. this is all solved if the experts looked at the enterprise document and they also did not do a replication tasks to show how the errors cpuld of been created via creating a document and running it could physically change grammarly to see the effects of the enterprise grammarly

laptop is going really slow from the heat so apolgies if i miss some stuff

ok closed everything and restarted sorry if I missed something important I'm back on and its working

craig says he was being sued for 600billion by ira and craig didn't want to say he was satoshi and he was forced under oath and say yes or no or be about contempt of court. if he says no he purjures himself and he could end the case no 100million and by saying yes he spent several years in court millions of dollars and he had to say yes all of that didn't help him in any way with what work he was doing.

he brings up the claim form estimate that financial value is in 100s of millions of dollars the info say pounds which the judge corrects him on and he then asks the questions again with dollars and craig says he doesn't get that money... that money goes into the industry. he says the value of btc will diminished. he ask if he didn't understand the value of what he will personally lose. the judge asks him to answer the question. he says if he did the anonymous satoshi he would be a lot richer then he is from saying he's satoshi.

they ask if he thinks he could recover hundred of billions of dollars and craig no he doesn't think that.

he says he worked in accounting negative value is still value.

craig asks permission to remove his jacket and the judge says ofcourse.

again the grammarly issues which im sure can be easily found out by buying a copy of the enterprise version and testing. if copa don't test it then they don't want the truth

again sitrix enterprise blah blah blah the same thing he has had to repeat to the lawyer over and over again. it really is amateur hour that something as simple as enterprise version vs normal version and sitrix have not been tested. if they are tested it could blow the entire "fake evidence" argument completely out of the water.

craig talks about how does a system like bitcoin stop things like child porn being propagated. the lawyer stops him and say the document has nothing to do with bitcoin. craig says there are examples of the element needs for bitcoin in there without directly talking about digital cash.

lawyer say that he does not say in the witness statement anything about bitcoin and he said he would of included it but it got cut out by his old solicitors

the first version of bitcoin had poker code init from the gambling site he was working with at the time.

he says he didnt have bitcoin in there because the paper wasn't about bitcoin it was about intermiteries. the judge check if craig is ok to continue as its been over an hour.

lawyer says neither version doesnt prefix the bitcoin systems and doesn't have a proposal of bitcoin. csw said no one can verify because no one checked the letter so how can we know what was in there.

when he opened the document in the presence of shoosmith it had the thesis and the proposal about with one document being inside another. as craig is concerned the thesis has the proposal are inside it. craig said when it was marked the two documents are both the same. laywer say 1 was publish and 1 published later. craig say no they was published at the same time.

they show a letter of credits from his reliance documents. the internal meta says its from 2008. the hyper links on the document dont point to the specific links and they say they was copied from the way back machine. he is aware of all these findings. and say both links appear on a blog post and not just the links but it has the same time stamp when the mouse is hover above them

again a Grammarly meta in the document later then the documents original time. csw says no its not editted.
madden says its been viewed and editted by someone at nchain recently. and craig says 2015 is not recent.

craig says they was written in 2008 and craig says he was writting this as part of his identity of satoshi and the lawyer says it would be weird for nchain to edit his documents and craig say no its not and his homework is training for staff in nchain.

craig says the judge is unique in that hes engineer and computer scientist and alot of people in nchain are just computer scientist so offering these documents. he instructed his old lawyers to do something and guess what they didnt do it.

a paper with bitcoin at the top has internal meta data past the date of the creation date. and mr madden found xml formatted screens and say the font foudn in the meta data that wasmt released by the time the document is ment to of been created.

1 page document with the name bitcoin law and laweyer says its a complete forgery and csw says it represents studys he started in 2005. meta data says 2008. and says the embedded picture files of the calculations didnt exist at the date he has provided

the document he showed wasnt authored by craig sebastian was the one who posted it and alex and he doesnt know the names of the other staff which the judge smiles at probably also not knowing some staff he works with too.

the lawyer says again its not a real document and says you can put it to mr mathews. we break for lunch and before we leave shoosmith says that we have several documents that have not been submitted. and the allegation of forgery and a change of document are very different things. they would submit that unless copa found a true forgery finding. they ARE NOT asking the lord to find forgery's except for a few documents that they both agree apon.

we break for lunch

WE ARE BACK FROM LUNCH.

we move straight into the letter that was no opened previously and so can not confirm or deny its full contents

they talk about the LLM proposal. and the lawyer says it wasnt attached to the letter and craig says it wasnt stabled he cant say it wasnt the same.

lawyer says there is a conflict and craig says not at all. its not attached to the letter. the lawyer says he has told lie after lie and craig say the letter was a standard peiece of paper and when he opened the envelope was the letter the proposal and his printed thesis. and he doesnt believe some slipped it in and doesnt think his lawyers would put it in

the lawyer asks with dotdoc file if any changes happen the root time stamp is changed. craig say when he uses sitrix it provides a completely different timestamps

They bring up the minutes document recording a meeting with Alan Granger at bdo. august 2007 and time 9:15am
and he says they have been stored in various offices but all his offices.
Craig was making a internal project for their data center.

kleiman transcript is now brought up to try to contrast the details of then and now

in the kliemen case he said the second minute note should of said DOC not POC. and they talk about the dating of the quill paper copy. and they talk about the design being post 2012 as the maker. craig goes threw the history of the companys and the mergers in which changed the designs of the paper.

craig has personal knowledge on quill and vantage and the judge and the merger of quill and vantax.

the company says they believe it and craig refers the the madden and placks experts say it isnt the first version of this minutes note.

they try to say craig is making up and then craig read the first page. and described the merger and how they have absolutely no involvement in the original brand. so they cant have the information for a company that was a rival until the merger. craig reads it worked for word verbatim that literally say exactly what he is saying.

this document worried me before and now i am not worried

there are differences in the original documents that craig are a reference of size npot a reference of change. they have 3 minutes document side by side. and says craigs documents are scanned not a direct proof and craig says its over reach and that the expert witness is going into areas that he does not expertise to comment on and so therefore it is biased and placks is just unskilled and craig says he doesn't know if placks is biased or not but definitely unskilled

craig says he did provide proof that the only difference is the size not the difference of documents. there is interference in the court equipment

craig says sirfargus and lee are wrong and craig says the individual only came to quill and have just looked at old records and as they was acquired in a merger the files wouldn't be there

there is a document on screen now showing a document about wright international investments limited.
this document show a value of 50 dollars per bitcoin is the assigned value. the next document is a intellectual patent exchange of £250,000

craig only mined in the first week all the other mining was done by trust companys and other entitys not in craig name or at least seperated from his name threw trust structure

the put a screen shot up of an excel sheet for ontier on how to access and login for his solicitors and the could get online access but they downloaded it instead

dr wright was allowed to extract MYOB files for the florida trial but did not have everyday normal access to it. mr madden found in disclosure a email to Steve shadders.

there was a zip file attached to the file and mr madden was able to do an audit. craig says this was a document he got the extract for the florida case not everyday access to it.

he produced another session audit and he used 2 as his own details and then a access as an administrator.

they say he added them on a later date that wasnt the free 2008 date. craig says he didnt have access to them he had to get permission for access

they try to say they are back dated and he said the expert says this.. and craig says he was required to provide information.

lawyer says that they was presented as dated from 2009. the live exaction of those files was from ontier.

craig say they had to go threw every single email he ever sent and the log in for the live version was provided in 2019 and 2019 proceeds this. the documents were sourced from ontier using a live log in. in 2019

the litigation didnt involve tulip trading and if he brought it in ira would get more money so he seperated the documents so ira would try to get more money. he didnt want to provide ira with information that was specifaly or lawfully requested.

he says that document was deliberately not involving things that had nothing to with the file or the other myob file and ontier had never been given the document all they did was take screenshots that are online.

these documents are different from the ones he provided by ontier.

the original screen shot first shown was screenshotted by ontier.

next document they ask if this document was produced by craig and he say no it was produced by ontier using details they was provided with in late 2019

a file that was produced via a us court order and created by ontier

craid disputes that because of those images were taken before that date so it cant be true.

he says at the time bitcoin had no value and craig says all was working on deals and the early valuations craig placed on it was $50 and because the time the trial happend they came up with the idea of jsut paying tax on it because the value at the time was considerably higher then 50

lawyer says so the docs are fake and your valuations was fake. craig gives further examples of his point with regards to the wrong valution of a dollar which at the time he thought was good.

the accounant or john chester or his wife gave the permissions.

the time stamps appear to show 2009 to 2011 and now the lawyers reads to find the right point and umms and awws whilst finding it. other pages show purchase of asset from other companys

mr maddens review of the documents find anomaly's with log in and log out effects that was seperated by 12 years. craig says it wasnt 12 years. this leads to the expert asking why this could happen?

sorry if these update are getting a bit crap im crashing in this heat. my brain is frazzled so i can only imagine what others are like. he talks about the back dated account from 2007 and when you use those the mapping still appears

mr madden finds log in an log out records which match but the timestamps dont match and craig says use the schemer and you will see the true log in and he says they are finding of someone who has never used an acoounting package especially not a australian package he invented called myob. the schemers need updates and will only do it when a schemer changes an entry.

may 2023 was when software was released. craig notes a point from myon and they noted there was a major update and no user could continue using the software unless everyone uses the updated version

craig agrees the experts came to the same conclusions but he doesnt agree they are experts

craig disagrees with the concession of the experts he gave individual people individual access and craig say in 2020 in feburary that documents were captured in feb 2020. craig give a little eye bro raise when talking about his previous lawyers and his information of privilege

we rise for 10 minutes and hopefully get the crackling of the court system fixed. im knackered my brain feels like it is the source of the heat in the room. there is a beautiful moment where ramona wearing a shirt similar to the pattern of the back of craig waist coat as she lovingly looks in his eyes and uses a fan to cool him down. he walks away with a big smile. genuine love and affection after that non stop grilling is beautiful now i can hear of the bitterness of the btc maxis behind me saying that they are the experts on bitcoin not craig lmfao independent indeed huh

see you when we come back from the break

they bring up "the time coin a peer to peer cash system.

craig says time coins was the commercial version of bitcoin and he say its a little bit different but its not exactly the same. The embedded time stamp of the document as a time stamp prior to the creation of the bitcoin white paper.

mr madden again say it was an editted version of the published bitcoin white paper.

he made a note that the fonts are different where a flow chart should appear.

both this document and the bitcoin whitepaper were created in early latex files. he says this is a odt document.

lawyer say the white paper wasnt written in latex and craig say yes it was and lawyer says the expert confirm that is was and craig say no it doesn't and talks about open symbol and say well there idfferent ofcourse they are as i triple e?

if they say its so simple to reproduce then they should just reproduce it but they cant so they cant reproduce and craig say they had no testing of that because the meta data says open office. a whole series of analyses of the meta data. garbage in gets you garbage out

craig says its not a flow chart its diagram. and a obj character and its a marker of where one would go rather then an automatic conversion from one to another where it cant bean embedded object.

the diagram in the white paper is not embedded as it has searchable text. you can select and search anything. the owner signature will actually bring up and unlike a diagram which you cant search and if that was an object in its place would be text

craig says anyone with a mouse can click on the white paper and search it and if it was aobj it could be search and that can only be provided by latex filing. and when your compiling and your not going to pdf and there is an error it can happen. he compiles a pdf so when you convert into workd or obt because its not standard it now becomes an embedded obj

the reason you dont have error is its embedded in the pdf the lawyer says your wrong the experts are correct lol hes so out of his depth in the tech knowledge. craig knows his tech and the lawyer cant come back any of it because he doesnt know any of it

mr madden says it would be extraordinary for some to be able to put indents in that are the perfect spaces for future diagrams and he already complied the images into a pdf and then has that compiled and because he wrote the latex original he knows the space and he specified coordinates for the diagrams and has specified line spacing and gaps.

he specified areas for the diagrams and he spoke about this in a published paper from 2007 and mr madden says its irregular hyphenation. lawyer says its consistent of a pdf to word conversion. he can download the pdf on his phone and it will come out correctly as in the hyphonation will be correct.

they are assuming there are errors in the latex but not always does craig hyphenate a conversion. pdf doesnt happen. latex does happen

he says he doesnt have a isngle document and no linear fashion and he produced a coded copy in latex and it had irregular line breaks and he says its not pure chance that they was in the perfect spaces. he does this perfect spaces as stenographic watermarks and he was playing with because he was writting a book about the stenography and watermarking

He starts talking about coding language that provide automatic updates so if he compiles P as 0.5 it automatically compiles to that values

he says it doesn't provided the earlier October 2008 and the march 2009 are not matching and craig says hes doesn't work lineally and hes goes back and forth. the lawyer suggest its a back dated forgery and because he presumes he didn't write the white paper because he did write all of them his presumption create a self bias which doesnt allow for impassive deliberation of facts

they have satoshi first email to dr back references dr back hash cash

now we see the reply of adam back

satoshi reply he wasnt aware of the b money page and says thanks and to check it out

now we have the citation of your b money page and satoshi says hes very eager to read the page and says he was referred via adam back

he knew about the email and what was there was a very short email but he thought that would give people help to provide a good idea. craig thought it was a proper fleshed out version but he hadnt it was just a page not a full paper.

he said a full paper hadnt been written but there was a proposal and they are not genuinely emails. b money page and paper wasnt a distinguishment satoshi made and he agrees that he didnt know that the email was the proposal because that wasnt a common place to offer proposals as emails

satoshi says thanks for the b money paper and was treating it as a paper and craig say no i didnt realise there was not a paper rather then a page. he also says futher down hes say im going to release a paper on your hash cash paper. one was a meail type blog post and the other was a paper proposal. he confused page and paper to be the same.

again the lawyer stop craig from fully explaining himself.

we now look at the authetic draft of the white paper and craig agrees that is correct.

mr madden say the adobe readers properties of this document shows a a creation date of 2008. and if it was genuine it would support he was satoshi.

mr madden found that the time stamp creation match a control paper that he found to be authetic but the year and month are different and he found that was remarkable coincidence.

again craig explains how he uses latex and the reason you do this is so you have a controlled copy and even if you print of compile it all has the same version.

if you compile in latex it will still have the same data even if its compiled a year later as its compiled from the master latex copy.

craig explains why its absurd to wait for a minutes and seconds and day and hour time to be the same exact time and the lawyer says it would be extremely essentric to set a code for the creation date and not anything else and craig says he is bizarre and hes an aspy and we are strange people. and he says the oddity is not of the FULLY ACCEPTED asbergers diagnoses its just odd.

mr madden further found there was difference between the original and the pre original and craig says yes he has multiple versions. craig says it weird to take all that time to do that rather then just a quick click and tap of the keys to edit the timing. rather then waiting for the timing

mr madden say the touch up text tab was indicting the editting of this document of names and areas and craig im fully entitled to edit my own document during the creation of my own document.

another touch up text has been found that wasnt on the page and in the meta data that reference nchain and nchain didnt exist in 2008 and again he says if has someone uploading thinks it is still his document

the one that is from 2009 wasnt done in april it was done in march. he says no it means the document has been opened at a later time. its indication that it was open in adobe. and found 2017 copyright info and so much of been back dated and craig say no its a indication its opened later and if he opened in acrobat editor then that doesn't change. he says the fonts in the bitcoin white paper are embedded so you cant change them

mr madden found 4 string of meta data stamps with a multitude of time stamps and madden says the computer clock must have to be changed and craig says if you open it in acrobat dc thats a common thing that happens.

he says that version was invalid and didnt refer to any real world versions. so he says it manipulated of time stamps which is correct according to craig.

craig sound like hes getting annoyed answering the same questions over and over again and he says he can print out a perfect version with a perfect meta data and any date andn time so if he can go into overleaf and type any date he wants which he can do and he finds it ridiculous to create a poorly executed fake.

we see a bitcoin white paper with craig wright as the name rather then satoshi nakamoto and it matches the original document to the naked eye
but the document doesnt match the document thats downloaded from the site. and so mr maddens conclusion is that it is not a authetic document because its after the time. if the text is correct it authentic document and changes can happen with a ssrn loading it.

may 2008 an authentic white paper with craig name is shown on screen
madden say the meta data creation date 24 of march 2009 and modification data was different.

mr madden says he found a touch up again

he says the name meta data has been changed from satoshi nakamoto to craig s wright. with full stops to help match the same field. they are the same length and it depend on the formating compression and they are the same length but the byte capacity wasnt altered so the file was damaged and craig say you dont need that and if you leave the byte charcters different it can damage the file

craig goes into data carving and carve out section of files in cd and in doing that you can reset the hex and so it would be possible to avoid file damage whilst having the same number of character.

he says he can have no dots in the name and it is wont corrupt and craig with a big smile says i put it to you i can sit here and demonstrate it in court to show you it wont corrupt if the lawyer so wishes

craig asks the judge for a little break. and the judge allows the last 5 minutes and the point to finish before the break. mr madden say lander characters with odd little symbols of a circle with 3 dots in it and mr madden says this is artefact of a change

craigs says you cant have the other symbols without the lander symbol as they connected threw the necessity of combined math symbols.

that symbol is in multiple other things and that symbol is in the latex file too. the font in question is not what madden found

he says the symbol was found first in 2012 in windows and he says some techno stuff that i dont understand lol
he also says the symbol with a circle and 3 dots is in 20 different fonts.

he asks craig if he is surprised with plackt findings and now he says it is a amazing the overreach of the maddox and to analyse the printed documents as if its a electronic document and you say i had a paper document that was printed.

they are moving all the equipment to a new court and the tech guys need 5 hours and so we may have to change court on the weekend to 4 degrees lower court.

The court session has finished for today. ill give a quick recap and then post my long summary on @tipstampers