February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright "The Satoshi Trial" Master Thread.
DAY 3
DAY 3
Lord Justice Mellor exactly on time just like on previous days.
Opening: Housekeeping: We won "hottest courtroom" at 28 degrees celsius and will be moving by Friday.
Wright back on the stands wearing black on black.
COPA: you called into question Dr Plax's qualifications and his report. "Sr Managing Director of Digital Forensics with a history at Ernst and Young, etc... Expert testimony in criminal proceedings, software engineer, PHD in CompSci..." On the basis of that, you're wrong to say he isn't qualified.
CSW: No I'm not. CCE, CCNE are just basic certifications. his PHD is in analysis of detecting lying in chat. He failed his certification test twice. On top of that, to be an expert doesn't require forensic certification, and he has no certification in CentOS, VMs, Linux or Citrix, and he has never touched a metadata or metaframe system...
COPA: He's a digital forensics expert for 20 years, you're suggesting he's incompetant?
CSW: Yes
COPA: I suggest you're wrong. Let's go to Mr. Spencer Frinch: "Stroz Freidberg. Active data breach investigator. Worked for Ernst and Young on data mining..." Is Lynch certified enough?
CSW: No
COPA: He is an expert
CSW: The US Gov, years ago, set up framework for minimum levels of competency. He wouldn't even meet basic level of certification.
Mellor: COuldn't you point your solicitors to a good forensics?
CSW: CAH dismissed everyone I suggested and muddied that whole process.
Opening: Housekeeping: We won "hottest courtroom" at 28 degrees celsius and will be moving by Friday.
Wright back on the stands wearing black on black.
COPA: you called into question Dr Plax's qualifications and his report. "Sr Managing Director of Digital Forensics with a history at Ernst and Young, etc... Expert testimony in criminal proceedings, software engineer, PHD in CompSci..." On the basis of that, you're wrong to say he isn't qualified.
CSW: No I'm not. CCE, CCNE are just basic certifications. his PHD is in analysis of detecting lying in chat. He failed his certification test twice. On top of that, to be an expert doesn't require forensic certification, and he has no certification in CentOS, VMs, Linux or Citrix, and he has never touched a metadata or metaframe system...
COPA: He's a digital forensics expert for 20 years, you're suggesting he's incompetant?
CSW: Yes
COPA: I suggest you're wrong. Let's go to Mr. Spencer Frinch: "Stroz Freidberg. Active data breach investigator. Worked for Ernst and Young on data mining..." Is Lynch certified enough?
CSW: No
COPA: He is an expert
CSW: The US Gov, years ago, set up framework for minimum levels of competency. He wouldn't even meet basic level of certification.
Mellor: COuldn't you point your solicitors to a good forensics?
CSW: CAH dismissed everyone I suggested and muddied that whole process.
COPA: You see this discussion about nodes in this old doc.
CSW: This is about honest nodes taking legal action against dishonest nodes. I said they end up in server farms because they're easy to find. Systems of civil liability for being dishonest nodes.
COPA: Doesn't bitcoin work without any legal?
CSW: No. Honest and Dishonest are legal terms I learned in my law degree at Northumbria.
COPA: The reason bitcoin naturally moved toward a transactions system is that the block reward is diminishing.
CSW: That isn't the case in BTC Core. 3-4 TPS limits txs and makes them more expensive. $45-60 tx fees. No micropayments. You can't push them to thousands of dollars. However, as the block size grows, millions of TPS fees become valuable. In BTC, that pushes the price up.
COPA: That doesn't answer my question.
CSW: In the attack model, the reward is static and based on a known reward. The self-correcting nature is because dishonest can't win over time because people need to work for 100 blocks without honest nodes acting to injunct or otherwise fight for honesty.
COPA: We can deal with this with the independent experts, but the resistance to the attack is hard coded, not based on legal.
CSW: It doesn't say that. Honest people vs attackers can always catch up because you can always stop the attacker. It's not about hash power. In the 100 block non-payment period, honest nodes act.
Mellor: You say it would be easy to get an order. How do you ID a dishonest actor?
CSW: Nodes form large data centers. 13 in BTC. You put an order to the biggest hashers who run in AWS or similar.
Mellor: Is a dishonest actor anyone who isn't following the rules?
CSW: You take the hard coded rules and follow them. Rules are more than the agreement. Rules in a club naturally include UK law, right? Same in bitcoin.
COPA: You agree the white paper doesn't mention this?
CSW: It doesn't need to because the system defines honest and dishonest which have definitions in british law.
COPA: Multiple references to schemas from 2014 and 15 in this doc. Madden concluded doc was backdated.
CSW: You seem to be implying my case is reliance because of metadata. These are to show the research I do. They are from corporate servers. Not from me directly. The thing to remember is that I never set up a time capsule and never said I did. We all knew these were from corporate servers from when I gave this to nChain in 2015. They are the origins of the white paper, but not because of metadata tags, but because they show the vast body of work over time to create bitcoin.
CSW: This is about honest nodes taking legal action against dishonest nodes. I said they end up in server farms because they're easy to find. Systems of civil liability for being dishonest nodes.
COPA: Doesn't bitcoin work without any legal?
CSW: No. Honest and Dishonest are legal terms I learned in my law degree at Northumbria.
COPA: The reason bitcoin naturally moved toward a transactions system is that the block reward is diminishing.
CSW: That isn't the case in BTC Core. 3-4 TPS limits txs and makes them more expensive. $45-60 tx fees. No micropayments. You can't push them to thousands of dollars. However, as the block size grows, millions of TPS fees become valuable. In BTC, that pushes the price up.
COPA: That doesn't answer my question.
CSW: In the attack model, the reward is static and based on a known reward. The self-correcting nature is because dishonest can't win over time because people need to work for 100 blocks without honest nodes acting to injunct or otherwise fight for honesty.
COPA: We can deal with this with the independent experts, but the resistance to the attack is hard coded, not based on legal.
CSW: It doesn't say that. Honest people vs attackers can always catch up because you can always stop the attacker. It's not about hash power. In the 100 block non-payment period, honest nodes act.
Mellor: You say it would be easy to get an order. How do you ID a dishonest actor?
CSW: Nodes form large data centers. 13 in BTC. You put an order to the biggest hashers who run in AWS or similar.
Mellor: Is a dishonest actor anyone who isn't following the rules?
CSW: You take the hard coded rules and follow them. Rules are more than the agreement. Rules in a club naturally include UK law, right? Same in bitcoin.
COPA: You agree the white paper doesn't mention this?
CSW: It doesn't need to because the system defines honest and dishonest which have definitions in british law.
COPA: Multiple references to schemas from 2014 and 15 in this doc. Madden concluded doc was backdated.
CSW: You seem to be implying my case is reliance because of metadata. These are to show the research I do. They are from corporate servers. Not from me directly. The thing to remember is that I never set up a time capsule and never said I did. We all knew these were from corporate servers from when I gave this to nChain in 2015. They are the origins of the white paper, but not because of metadata tags, but because they show the vast body of work over time to create bitcoin.
COPA: You were asked to nominate documents to show you're Satoshi.
CSW: Yes, but the chain of custody was clear that these came from corporate servers. This isn't a case about metadata. These are the ideas that led to me having 4000 patents. When a source is a server, it's not me personally. It is a staff-managed server. I do voice and hand written notes and typed by others [I can confirm this is how he works]
COPA: But how were they altered?
CSW: Automatically. I have done over a thousand forensic engagements. These docs clearly say "drafted by" which can be dictated, hand written, etc... I didn't say I typed them. I'm not the IT manager at my company.
COPA: Was the bitcoin white paper published in pristine condition?
CSW: It's close. The one embedded in the blockchain was. There's several versions... The one you bring up is one of many.
COPA: The control copies. No sign of alteration.
CSW: They're downloaded fresh every time. They aren't part of a research aparatus. In 2009, I didn't think I would be in court trying to show provenance of being Satoshi.
COPA: You didn't tell us staff would alter docs.
CSW: "used" isn't "altered." You can see laptops that aren't mine where they came from and the corporate file servers. I didn't think I would need to explain to experts how this works.
COPA: Experts will address later. There are pristine docs in this case like the Blacknet doc.
CSW: Yes, I'm surprised there are any, but that's great.
COPA: Madden found hidden remnant text in the raw data.
CSW: That hyperlink has nothing to do with what the paper is about.
COPA: This suggests a clumsy edit, doesn't it?
CSW: In Citrix metaframe, people access files. It's consistent with someone opening and not saving properly. The templates resolve to changes when Linux is the back end too.
COPA: this eluded both experts?
CSW: They aren't certified in Citrix or VM.
COPA: Do you accept this new doc?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: About bitcoin and double spend problem?
CSW: And more, yes.
COPA: From 2008?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Save dates in 2008?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Edit times and save times...
CSW: Yes
COPA: Madden says clock manipulation. Right?
CSW: Operation of Citrix leads to persistence, as stated.
COPA: Experts reject that.
CSW: Actually, he said Xcopy can. MS says the tool was from 1986 and hasn't been updated. It can't update. It's just old, but it demonstrates categorically that I'm right. It can't do what the "experts" are saying.
COPA: Madden ID'd another version of the doc which is a remnant of editing. YEs?
CSW: No
COPA: Madden also found article by you from 2019. Was that you?
CSW: I write papers, and my secretaries run my blog. I send documents. I currently have a 4 year backlog if published weekly. I'm still in university and I write a paper every two days at least.
COPA: Moving away from the Al Yankovic pic in a tin foil hat [Craig smiles at judge]. Would you agree this speaks of bitcoin as a system in operation?
CSW: Staff would have chosen what they want to put in a post.
COPA: You said Lynn edited your rants out of this? [Craig smiles]
CSW: Yes
COPA: She changed to future tense? But the remnant text is in past tense?
CSW: Those docs are different. Lynn edited the doc, and anyone else could have edited again.
COPA: The explanation of Lynn editing it wouldn't make sense would it?
CSW: I've said I have employees. The attacks I was getting were before bitcoin. I was getting attacks from James Donald before bitcoin launched. We had rants about how to do the system should work. So, speaking about tense describes a system that didn't exist yet, but was described in public.
COPA: Pause there. Bring up document. What about this?
CSW: They were saying everyone needs a node before the network even launched. I thought it was obvious that the system would get big fast, but they were saying it needed to stay small before it ever mined.
COPA: You're lying
CSW: My own docs are clear on this.
CSW: Yes, but the chain of custody was clear that these came from corporate servers. This isn't a case about metadata. These are the ideas that led to me having 4000 patents. When a source is a server, it's not me personally. It is a staff-managed server. I do voice and hand written notes and typed by others [I can confirm this is how he works]
COPA: But how were they altered?
CSW: Automatically. I have done over a thousand forensic engagements. These docs clearly say "drafted by" which can be dictated, hand written, etc... I didn't say I typed them. I'm not the IT manager at my company.
COPA: Was the bitcoin white paper published in pristine condition?
CSW: It's close. The one embedded in the blockchain was. There's several versions... The one you bring up is one of many.
COPA: The control copies. No sign of alteration.
CSW: They're downloaded fresh every time. They aren't part of a research aparatus. In 2009, I didn't think I would be in court trying to show provenance of being Satoshi.
COPA: You didn't tell us staff would alter docs.
CSW: "used" isn't "altered." You can see laptops that aren't mine where they came from and the corporate file servers. I didn't think I would need to explain to experts how this works.
COPA: Experts will address later. There are pristine docs in this case like the Blacknet doc.
CSW: Yes, I'm surprised there are any, but that's great.
COPA: Madden found hidden remnant text in the raw data.
CSW: That hyperlink has nothing to do with what the paper is about.
COPA: This suggests a clumsy edit, doesn't it?
CSW: In Citrix metaframe, people access files. It's consistent with someone opening and not saving properly. The templates resolve to changes when Linux is the back end too.
COPA: this eluded both experts?
CSW: They aren't certified in Citrix or VM.
COPA: Do you accept this new doc?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: About bitcoin and double spend problem?
CSW: And more, yes.
COPA: From 2008?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Save dates in 2008?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Edit times and save times...
CSW: Yes
COPA: Madden says clock manipulation. Right?
CSW: Operation of Citrix leads to persistence, as stated.
COPA: Experts reject that.
CSW: Actually, he said Xcopy can. MS says the tool was from 1986 and hasn't been updated. It can't update. It's just old, but it demonstrates categorically that I'm right. It can't do what the "experts" are saying.
COPA: Madden ID'd another version of the doc which is a remnant of editing. YEs?
CSW: No
COPA: Madden also found article by you from 2019. Was that you?
CSW: I write papers, and my secretaries run my blog. I send documents. I currently have a 4 year backlog if published weekly. I'm still in university and I write a paper every two days at least.
COPA: Moving away from the Al Yankovic pic in a tin foil hat [Craig smiles at judge]. Would you agree this speaks of bitcoin as a system in operation?
CSW: Staff would have chosen what they want to put in a post.
COPA: You said Lynn edited your rants out of this? [Craig smiles]
CSW: Yes
COPA: She changed to future tense? But the remnant text is in past tense?
CSW: Those docs are different. Lynn edited the doc, and anyone else could have edited again.
COPA: The explanation of Lynn editing it wouldn't make sense would it?
CSW: I've said I have employees. The attacks I was getting were before bitcoin. I was getting attacks from James Donald before bitcoin launched. We had rants about how to do the system should work. So, speaking about tense describes a system that didn't exist yet, but was described in public.
COPA: Pause there. Bring up document. What about this?
CSW: They were saying everyone needs a node before the network even launched. I thought it was obvious that the system would get big fast, but they were saying it needed to stay small before it ever mined.
COPA: You're lying
CSW: My own docs are clear on this.
COPA: This doc on your Mstat degree show 2008 save dates. And you describe bitcoin-based systems here?
CSW: Yes
COPA: You suddenly change here?
CSW: I'm describing biological systems as a specific type of system. But there are also general systems.
COPA: You explain network edges, graphs, etc.. Madden found a book about random graphs. Here: is that the same sentence in your paper?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: That's the source?
CSW: That professor started teaching this topic ten years earlier. The book is a collection of his lecture notes. Today, there's 2 versions, but when I was a stats student, I used notes from this professor - not from his later book.
COPA: Madden found a series of the passages from Hofstaedt's book.
CSW: Which are from his notes, yes.
COPA: Madden says the first version of the book was the 5th edition online in 2016. Previous version didn't have this!
CSW: The older version didn't have his full notes.
COPA: So YOU had his full notes that made it into his 2016 book?! Were they disclosed?
CSW: No.
COPA: It's a fairy story isn't it?
CSW: the book states the existence of the notes.
COPA: Madden says..
CSW: I don't use word equation software. Madden doesn't get it.
COPA: New document. Linked to your MStat degree. Do you accept that these sentences correspond to section 11 from the bitcoin white paper?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Save date MArch 2008
CSW: Yes
COPA: Madden says it's inauthentic. Plax agrees. Metadata shows it was created using OpenOffice 2.4 which didn't exist until weeks after the supposed creation date. Confirmed by (missed who).
CSW: When I used OpenOffice, I used LaTex plugins which allowed me to set dates. In my text books about cyber forensics, I taught my students to use funky versions to confuse attackers.
COPA: This is an OpenOffice doc. You deliberately alter metadata?!
CSW: Sometimes, when writing textbooks on such topics.
COPA: You haven't said that in your appendix
CSW: Ok, it could have been lots of things.
COPA: It beggars belief that the real Satoshi would take a part of his document and mess with the metadata to use as a demo tool for random students.
CSW: Why? Pseudo isn't Anon. Harry Potter's author wasn't unknown, but was private. Like me. There's a difference between anon, private and public.
COPA: the real Satoshi, if they wanted to stay private, it would be absurd to show this to random.
CSW: they weren't random. These were postgrad students, many of whom came to work with me. I want them to see my stuff because I'm recruiting. When I trust people, I am happy to be open with them.
COPA: Can you name any will be giving evidence in this trial?
CSW: David Bridges will be.
BREAK TIME
CSW: Yes
COPA: You suddenly change here?
CSW: I'm describing biological systems as a specific type of system. But there are also general systems.
COPA: You explain network edges, graphs, etc.. Madden found a book about random graphs. Here: is that the same sentence in your paper?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: That's the source?
CSW: That professor started teaching this topic ten years earlier. The book is a collection of his lecture notes. Today, there's 2 versions, but when I was a stats student, I used notes from this professor - not from his later book.
COPA: Madden found a series of the passages from Hofstaedt's book.
CSW: Which are from his notes, yes.
COPA: Madden says the first version of the book was the 5th edition online in 2016. Previous version didn't have this!
CSW: The older version didn't have his full notes.
COPA: So YOU had his full notes that made it into his 2016 book?! Were they disclosed?
CSW: No.
COPA: It's a fairy story isn't it?
CSW: the book states the existence of the notes.
COPA: Madden says..
CSW: I don't use word equation software. Madden doesn't get it.
COPA: New document. Linked to your MStat degree. Do you accept that these sentences correspond to section 11 from the bitcoin white paper?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Save date MArch 2008
CSW: Yes
COPA: Madden says it's inauthentic. Plax agrees. Metadata shows it was created using OpenOffice 2.4 which didn't exist until weeks after the supposed creation date. Confirmed by (missed who).
CSW: When I used OpenOffice, I used LaTex plugins which allowed me to set dates. In my text books about cyber forensics, I taught my students to use funky versions to confuse attackers.
COPA: This is an OpenOffice doc. You deliberately alter metadata?!
CSW: Sometimes, when writing textbooks on such topics.
COPA: You haven't said that in your appendix
CSW: Ok, it could have been lots of things.
COPA: It beggars belief that the real Satoshi would take a part of his document and mess with the metadata to use as a demo tool for random students.
CSW: Why? Pseudo isn't Anon. Harry Potter's author wasn't unknown, but was private. Like me. There's a difference between anon, private and public.
COPA: the real Satoshi, if they wanted to stay private, it would be absurd to show this to random.
CSW: they weren't random. These were postgrad students, many of whom came to work with me. I want them to see my stuff because I'm recruiting. When I trust people, I am happy to be open with them.
COPA: Can you name any will be giving evidence in this trial?
CSW: David Bridges will be.
BREAK TIME
COPA: Here you said "I never manipulate metadata"
CSW: Manipulate implies malice. Showing it being set isn't altering, modifying or manipulation. It is creation.
COPA: New doc. More bitcoin-related content. Madden explains that the edit time exceeded the time between creation and last save. This isn't possible without manipulation.
CSW: More Citrix
COPA: Your explanations are wrong.
CSW: [Smirk]
COPA: New doc pithily calls "Maths" from 2008.
CSW: Ok
COPA: Under small worlds, you say it's like bitcoin.
CSW: Yes
COPA: The footnotes mentions snort and TC dump. Are these for network traffic?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Graph distances mentioned forks. Is that the fork of Bitcoin Cash?
CSW: I don't know what this is.
COPA: You're an expert in cryptocurrency aren't you?
CSW: No. You can build a cryptocurrency in bitcoin, but it's a cash system.
COPA: This doc is talking about BCH which would be from 2017. Does that make sense?
CSW: The original doc was from 2008. It appears updated.
COPA: So not authentic to 2008?
CSW: All docs get used after their publication dates.
COPA: So your reliance docs can't be relied upon?
CSW: Not if you think my documents don't get used in constant ongoing research.
Mellor saying "Move on Mr Hough"
COPA: This new doc looks like it was manipulated to look like it precedes bitcoin. Your dissertation. [gets confused about location]
CSW: I took LLM in Newcastle UK. Northumbria.
COPA: These 2 are in your reliance docs
CSW: Yes
COPA: Postal acceptance rule and payments on the internet. Explains a purely P2P version of electronic cash sentence in parallel to the bitcoin white paper. Madden notes Grammarly software timestamp from 2009.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Also these fonts and schemas weren't released before 2012.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: It's backdated, yes?
CSW: No. The paper copy you have was forensically tested and shown to be at least 5 years of age in 2019.
COPA: We aren't seeking that analysis. Answer the question.
CSW: When you use metaframe, these things change. This was on employee machines so they can understand the purpose I had for bitcoin.
COPA: These many people didn't make changes to text?
CSW: They have read only access unless admin in Citrix.
COPA: Madden says it's wrong to say that changing the template doesn't change in the way you're explaining.
CSW: He's explaining DocX. I'm talking DocM. That's Macro template with Visual Studio code.
COPA: The Grammarly timestamp shouldn't altar.
CSW: In the enterprise version would. Madden didn't test that version.
COPA: You say secretaries do your work from hand-written or voice notes. Collected from a USB via Stefan Matthews and used OpenOffice to convert to Word and Dragon was used for voice. Do you accept that the chain of custody info is rather confused with lots of people, formats and methods? why so confusing?
CSW: I write how I write, and I don't micromanage publication.
COPA: It lists you as the author. DocX format. Shown screenshot here in Slack in 2019. This you?
CSW: I see it.
COPA: Doc is hash verified identical. Includes same Grammarly timestamp, yes?
CSW: Yes
COPA: The natural conclusion by Madden is that timestamps show when created and used in 2019.
CSW: They were handled by my solicitors and wasn't terribly good. Simon Cohen or people from nChain handle these things before I loaded into Slack.
COPA: Another Slack post: Signing proves possession. ID is based in law. Doc from 2007.
CSW: Yes, I was arguing that my research are part of the proof of my work and ID.
COPA: Note the open Grammarly button in the screenshot.
CSW: This one is not the business version. I don't currently have an nChain laptop. That one is actually my personal Grammarly. If you open here, you don't get a tag. Being that this is the standard version, this can't be the version where your timestamp came from. Madden said he didn't have a Grammarly subscription to check.
COPA: Doc from 2019. Do you accept that what was posted is a proposal for dissertation?
CSW: Yes
Mellor: Why post your proposal?
CSW: I wanted to show proposal and final LLM. Trusted 3rd parties is a term in CompSci, but in law, I use different words, and I wanted to show change over time. In British University, this would be common to show my work.
COPA: When you posted dissertation in Slack, you were touting being Satoshi.
CSW: I had already been forced to out myself.
COPA: So you're touting it.
CSW: The Kleiman case was about IP and assets. I'm not suing for hundred of billions. I was being sued for 600 billion dollars. I didn't say it was worth that. People suiing me say it. I didn't want to say I was Satoshi. I was forced under oath. I wasn't gleeful or touting. I was forced. This has interrupted my work and my life.
COPA: We dispute that 2019 was the first time you had to say you were Satoshi.
CSW: I didn't say first.
CSW: Manipulate implies malice. Showing it being set isn't altering, modifying or manipulation. It is creation.
COPA: New doc. More bitcoin-related content. Madden explains that the edit time exceeded the time between creation and last save. This isn't possible without manipulation.
CSW: More Citrix
COPA: Your explanations are wrong.
CSW: [Smirk]
COPA: New doc pithily calls "Maths" from 2008.
CSW: Ok
COPA: Under small worlds, you say it's like bitcoin.
CSW: Yes
COPA: The footnotes mentions snort and TC dump. Are these for network traffic?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Graph distances mentioned forks. Is that the fork of Bitcoin Cash?
CSW: I don't know what this is.
COPA: You're an expert in cryptocurrency aren't you?
CSW: No. You can build a cryptocurrency in bitcoin, but it's a cash system.
COPA: This doc is talking about BCH which would be from 2017. Does that make sense?
CSW: The original doc was from 2008. It appears updated.
COPA: So not authentic to 2008?
CSW: All docs get used after their publication dates.
COPA: So your reliance docs can't be relied upon?
CSW: Not if you think my documents don't get used in constant ongoing research.
Mellor saying "Move on Mr Hough"
COPA: This new doc looks like it was manipulated to look like it precedes bitcoin. Your dissertation. [gets confused about location]
CSW: I took LLM in Newcastle UK. Northumbria.
COPA: These 2 are in your reliance docs
CSW: Yes
COPA: Postal acceptance rule and payments on the internet. Explains a purely P2P version of electronic cash sentence in parallel to the bitcoin white paper. Madden notes Grammarly software timestamp from 2009.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Also these fonts and schemas weren't released before 2012.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: It's backdated, yes?
CSW: No. The paper copy you have was forensically tested and shown to be at least 5 years of age in 2019.
COPA: We aren't seeking that analysis. Answer the question.
CSW: When you use metaframe, these things change. This was on employee machines so they can understand the purpose I had for bitcoin.
COPA: These many people didn't make changes to text?
CSW: They have read only access unless admin in Citrix.
COPA: Madden says it's wrong to say that changing the template doesn't change in the way you're explaining.
CSW: He's explaining DocX. I'm talking DocM. That's Macro template with Visual Studio code.
COPA: The Grammarly timestamp shouldn't altar.
CSW: In the enterprise version would. Madden didn't test that version.
COPA: You say secretaries do your work from hand-written or voice notes. Collected from a USB via Stefan Matthews and used OpenOffice to convert to Word and Dragon was used for voice. Do you accept that the chain of custody info is rather confused with lots of people, formats and methods? why so confusing?
CSW: I write how I write, and I don't micromanage publication.
COPA: It lists you as the author. DocX format. Shown screenshot here in Slack in 2019. This you?
CSW: I see it.
COPA: Doc is hash verified identical. Includes same Grammarly timestamp, yes?
CSW: Yes
COPA: The natural conclusion by Madden is that timestamps show when created and used in 2019.
CSW: They were handled by my solicitors and wasn't terribly good. Simon Cohen or people from nChain handle these things before I loaded into Slack.
COPA: Another Slack post: Signing proves possession. ID is based in law. Doc from 2007.
CSW: Yes, I was arguing that my research are part of the proof of my work and ID.
COPA: Note the open Grammarly button in the screenshot.
CSW: This one is not the business version. I don't currently have an nChain laptop. That one is actually my personal Grammarly. If you open here, you don't get a tag. Being that this is the standard version, this can't be the version where your timestamp came from. Madden said he didn't have a Grammarly subscription to check.
COPA: Doc from 2019. Do you accept that what was posted is a proposal for dissertation?
CSW: Yes
Mellor: Why post your proposal?
CSW: I wanted to show proposal and final LLM. Trusted 3rd parties is a term in CompSci, but in law, I use different words, and I wanted to show change over time. In British University, this would be common to show my work.
COPA: When you posted dissertation in Slack, you were touting being Satoshi.
CSW: I had already been forced to out myself.
COPA: So you're touting it.
CSW: The Kleiman case was about IP and assets. I'm not suing for hundred of billions. I was being sued for 600 billion dollars. I didn't say it was worth that. People suiing me say it. I didn't want to say I was Satoshi. I was forced under oath. I wasn't gleeful or touting. I was forced. This has interrupted my work and my life.
COPA: We dispute that 2019 was the first time you had to say you were Satoshi.
CSW: I didn't say first.
COPA: You say you're not suing them for hundreds of billions, but here it says you are.
CSW: If I'm right, I don't get that money. It's how the market reacts. So I'm not suing for it. It's worth that for the cartels and terrorists who launder billions through BTC exchanges.
COPA: You didn't understand the significance of the value in this form?
CSW: What I'm saying is I will lose hundreds of billions in my BTC holdings. The value diminishes if my ideas win.
COPA: You're not trying to recover these amounts?
CSW: No. I don't think I will recover that money. Value will go down if I win.
COPA: You signed a statement of truth bringing a claim of hundreds of billions of dollars or pounds.
CSW: Negative value is still value.
COPA: This doc was drafted by you? 2007-2008. Same wording about postal acceptance rule and language from bitcoin white paper?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Same Grammarly timestamps.
CSW: Sure
COPA: It's backdated
CSW: No
COPA: Madden sees the editing times are unusually long and one is impossible.
CSW: Use of Citrix metaframe and powershell produce these results.
COPA: You describe this thing as the start of bitcoin
CSW: Yes
COPA: Your dissertation shows internet intermediaries. You address the changing nature of the internet and liability for conduct. That doc doesn't use bitcoin-related language, correct?
CSW: It talks about P2P and nodes, which are distributed intermediaries.
COPA: It talks here about internet money, but people mostly use traditional means or PayPal. This is a passage from your dissertation. Rather than going into P2P cash, you sideline bitcoin's ideas.
CSW: Individual nodes cant do anything in bitcoin like a corporation can. But nodes together form a distributed system that is mentioned here. Look at the top paragraph where I explain how to ensure trust. In my first version of bitcoin, there was a poker stub..
COPA: Interrupts: You don't draw linguistic parallels.
CSW: But I do here.
COPA: You cut them all out in dissertation.
CSW: As the Judge knows from engineering school, you have to focus on the topic. It's not a computer science project, it's an intermediary project, so I focused on that.
COPA: No proof?
CSW: I don't have Northumbria emails anymore.
COPA: You don't have any evidence that these are related, and you didn't bring this up in your dissertation?
CSW: It's not interesting that not everything I did was bitcoin.
COPA: In this statement, you say it's not verified?
CSW: Nobody could verify anything until the letter was opened.
COPA: So this is a different version?
CSW: Seemingly.
COPA: It should only have your thesis, right?
CSW: That's all was there.
COPA: When did you see the doc?
CSW: At Shoosmiths. The first I accessed it was with them where we saw the envelope opened together.
COPA: You hadn't shared this before? This story wasn't stated.
CSW: My thesis includes the proposal.
COPA: You didn't say the proposal was separate?
CSW: They're part of the same thesis.
COPA: They're different docs.
CSW: One is a superset of the other.
COPA: There's no mention of publication.
CSW: the first time the LLM published was 2019. I put out fragments, but everything was out by 2019.
COPA: This is a 2019 forgery
CSW: This is from the university
CSW: If I'm right, I don't get that money. It's how the market reacts. So I'm not suing for it. It's worth that for the cartels and terrorists who launder billions through BTC exchanges.
COPA: You didn't understand the significance of the value in this form?
CSW: What I'm saying is I will lose hundreds of billions in my BTC holdings. The value diminishes if my ideas win.
COPA: You're not trying to recover these amounts?
CSW: No. I don't think I will recover that money. Value will go down if I win.
COPA: You signed a statement of truth bringing a claim of hundreds of billions of dollars or pounds.
CSW: Negative value is still value.
COPA: This doc was drafted by you? 2007-2008. Same wording about postal acceptance rule and language from bitcoin white paper?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Same Grammarly timestamps.
CSW: Sure
COPA: It's backdated
CSW: No
COPA: Madden sees the editing times are unusually long and one is impossible.
CSW: Use of Citrix metaframe and powershell produce these results.
COPA: You describe this thing as the start of bitcoin
CSW: Yes
COPA: Your dissertation shows internet intermediaries. You address the changing nature of the internet and liability for conduct. That doc doesn't use bitcoin-related language, correct?
CSW: It talks about P2P and nodes, which are distributed intermediaries.
COPA: It talks here about internet money, but people mostly use traditional means or PayPal. This is a passage from your dissertation. Rather than going into P2P cash, you sideline bitcoin's ideas.
CSW: Individual nodes cant do anything in bitcoin like a corporation can. But nodes together form a distributed system that is mentioned here. Look at the top paragraph where I explain how to ensure trust. In my first version of bitcoin, there was a poker stub..
COPA: Interrupts: You don't draw linguistic parallels.
CSW: But I do here.
COPA: You cut them all out in dissertation.
CSW: As the Judge knows from engineering school, you have to focus on the topic. It's not a computer science project, it's an intermediary project, so I focused on that.
COPA: No proof?
CSW: I don't have Northumbria emails anymore.
COPA: You don't have any evidence that these are related, and you didn't bring this up in your dissertation?
CSW: It's not interesting that not everything I did was bitcoin.
COPA: In this statement, you say it's not verified?
CSW: Nobody could verify anything until the letter was opened.
COPA: So this is a different version?
CSW: Seemingly.
COPA: It should only have your thesis, right?
CSW: That's all was there.
COPA: When did you see the doc?
CSW: At Shoosmiths. The first I accessed it was with them where we saw the envelope opened together.
COPA: You hadn't shared this before? This story wasn't stated.
CSW: My thesis includes the proposal.
COPA: You didn't say the proposal was separate?
CSW: They're part of the same thesis.
COPA: They're different docs.
CSW: One is a superset of the other.
COPA: There's no mention of publication.
CSW: the first time the LLM published was 2019. I put out fragments, but everything was out by 2019.
COPA: This is a 2019 forgery
CSW: This is from the university
COPA: New doc going over metadata and publication stuff. Links to Wayback machine. Madden found Grammarly timestamp of 2019. You edited this.
CSW: No
COPA: This was edited after 2015. You said it was not edited recently.
CSW: 2015 isn't recent.
COPA: But it's been edited again.
CSW: Perhaps. IDK
COPA: Did you know when you could have revised your list, you retained this doc as a reliance doc. It wasn't sensible because it had been edited.
CSW: Sure it does. It's a university publication document. Again, I don't care about the Metadata, but it shows I was writing about bitcoin adjacent topics in the relevant era.
COPA: The document analysis shows someone edited it in 2015. Why would someone at nChain edit your LLM homework in 2015?
CSW: The document is about embedding in bitcoin script. It was given to them for research.
COPA: This wasn't revolutionary. It was homework.
CSW: CompSci doesn't get it. Judge, you get this as an engineer and compscientist. We need to share info with who we work with.
COPA: Note the issues with fonts and schemas
CSW: Sure
COPA: It's backdated.
CSW: No.
COPA: You said you drafted this about digital cash.
CSW: Yes
COPA: Madden found the equations were embedded pic files converted from a later version.
CSW: I know what he said
COPA: Did you author this doc?
CSW: I drafted it. It would have been typed by Sebastian or Alex, and then they choose whatever software to use pics and stuff.
COPA: So consistent with deliberate backdating.
CSW: No
COPA: This isn't authentic or reliable
CSW: You can ask Stefan Matthews how I work.
TIME FOR BREAK 1 HOUR.
Hodlonaut sitting behind CSW's KC.
CSW: No
COPA: This was edited after 2015. You said it was not edited recently.
CSW: 2015 isn't recent.
COPA: But it's been edited again.
CSW: Perhaps. IDK
COPA: Did you know when you could have revised your list, you retained this doc as a reliance doc. It wasn't sensible because it had been edited.
CSW: Sure it does. It's a university publication document. Again, I don't care about the Metadata, but it shows I was writing about bitcoin adjacent topics in the relevant era.
COPA: The document analysis shows someone edited it in 2015. Why would someone at nChain edit your LLM homework in 2015?
CSW: The document is about embedding in bitcoin script. It was given to them for research.
COPA: This wasn't revolutionary. It was homework.
CSW: CompSci doesn't get it. Judge, you get this as an engineer and compscientist. We need to share info with who we work with.
COPA: Note the issues with fonts and schemas
CSW: Sure
COPA: It's backdated.
CSW: No.
COPA: You said you drafted this about digital cash.
CSW: Yes
COPA: Madden found the equations were embedded pic files converted from a later version.
CSW: I know what he said
COPA: Did you author this doc?
CSW: I drafted it. It would have been typed by Sebastian or Alex, and then they choose whatever software to use pics and stuff.
COPA: So consistent with deliberate backdating.
CSW: No
COPA: This isn't authentic or reliable
CSW: You can ask Stefan Matthews how I work.
TIME FOR BREAK 1 HOUR.
Hodlonaut sitting behind CSW's KC.
Tips appreciated handcash.me/kurt
BACK FROM THE LUNCH BREAK.
COPA: You said you couldn't prove the provenance of the letter?
CSW: The envelope
COPA: Going to your 13th witness statement. You say it was not attached, but you said you cannot say when these things happened. You're lying again.
CSW: I stated I believed they were together as a document. In the envelope was my thesis, letter, and I handed them over.
COPA: This is a set of minutes from BDO with alan Grainger from August 2007. Handwritten.
CSW: Yes
COPA: Says "finish code" then "write paper" and it explores the bitcoin system with Grainger?
CSW: They'd be notes on the discussion, yes.
COPA: Your COC doc says they were then stored in your office.
CSW: Various offices of mine, yes.
COPA: You wanted funds for this?
CSW: No. I wanted the company to run it in their data center, not pay me to do it.
COPA: In the Granath trial, you said it was working on bitcoin code?
CSW: Timecoin code, but yes.
COPA: You said there's a finished POC here. "Finished doc" do you agree it's "doc" and not "poc"
CSW: Yes.
Mellor: Do you know what happened to Quil?
CSW: A company that became Staples, you can see the Bantex and Quill merged.
COPA: But they can't be real according to QUill because it's Bantex.
CSW: Bantex merged with Quill.
COPA: So you know more about the production of this pad of paper than the producer?
CSW: Lee was a manager of Bantax at the time I was using Quill pad!
COPA: You're making it up as you go!
CSW: Look at the first page. Hamlin was known as Bantex, Bantex purchased Quill. These people wouldn't know!
COPA: Ms Lee confirmed manufactured in Shenzhen.
CSW: It says Hamlin brands right there. Not Quill.
[Not a great exchange for Craig here. Hough getting some momentum?]
COPA: This looks like a pixelation issue.
CSW: Size is wrong.
COPA: going to Madden's report. You wanted it pixelated.
CSW: I said they're not pixelated. Madden isn't a resolution expert, and he shouldn't comment on things which he isn't an expert. I said it's a size difference not pixels. YOU said pixels.
COPA: Madden isn't biased.
CSW: Yes he is.
COPA: And Plax?
CSW: Unskilled. Not sure what else.
COPA: You said you disagree here.
CSW: they're wrong. I stated the company mergers in my statement.
COPA: How would you know?!
CSW: I worked at Staples which was a major supplier of the brand. I knew it intimately.
COPA: The reality is that this is another forged document.
CSW: Your contacts looked at old files, not from personal expertise.
COPA: So, you took these screenshots on mining?
CSW: Ontier would have.
COPA: You mined as Satoshi?
CSW: Just the first few blocks. Then Information Defense company did.
COPA: This is a screenshot again: your reliance docs. [something about] needle in a haystack about pulling up data about this document from the Kleiman trial.
CSW: I don't have admin access to MYOB which was given to @shnodders to analyze.
COPA: This was given to your office at Panopticrypt. The txs were added to the system in 2020 but dated to 2010
CSW: I had to give the american court, but I don't have any access to the data. I literally couldn't have edited anything.
COPA: You said you were required to provide a list of your bitcoin holdings. But didn't have access.
CSW: Correct
COPA: You said "someone" got it for you at the time.
CSW: Yes
COPA: You took the qif file and opened it on your computer to import into MYOB.
CSW: Yes
COPA: You gave the impression of 2009.
CSW: Live extraction was done by Ontier.
COPA: You laboriously entered them in multiple docs?
CSW: No. These docs weren't used here. These were given to Ontier, Alex Partners and others prior to any of the stuff you're saying.
COPA: these weren't authentic.
CSW: they came directly from ONtier. they captured this using a live login.
COPA: But YOU created these in March 2020
CSW: Your error is that I had to create another document. Litigation in the US didn't involve Tulip Trading, so I separated them offline to make sure TTL didn't go into Kleiman case.
COPA: But they looked like genuine MYOB entries looking like 2009, but you produced them in 2020.
CSW: No. MYOB login details will show the account is from 2009, not 2020.
COPA: If Madden hadn't discovered this, you would have let us be ignorant.
CSW: I will give information I'm ordered to give. Ontier could not have handed this over because they didn't have them. I was ordered by Reinhart to hand over X, but I am not giving over things not ordered in this case.
COPA: The COC is bad, is it not?
CSW: I don't have a login or the file. Paralegals at Ontier handled them.
COPA: Can we agree Madden audited and the docs were generated after these dates?
CSW: This specific was Ontier. show me the next file and I'll comment. This one was produced by Ontier downloading them.
COPA: Is this a doc was produced in March 2020?
CSW: This is a doc produced by Ontier logging on in 2019. Either way, I don't even have admin access. They had to help me respond to Reinhart.
COPA: You dispute Madden's findings?
CSW: Yes, they can't be true. The dates don't make sense.
COPA: The reality is that you made entries to invent a narrative.
CSW: False.
COPA: You valued $50/bitcoin, but they didn't have a value, did they?
CSW: Me, Martti and Joseph Vaughn Perling were having discussions about how to build an exchange with Liberty Dollars.
COPA: You said you couldn't prove the provenance of the letter?
CSW: The envelope
COPA: Going to your 13th witness statement. You say it was not attached, but you said you cannot say when these things happened. You're lying again.
CSW: I stated I believed they were together as a document. In the envelope was my thesis, letter, and I handed them over.
COPA: This is a set of minutes from BDO with alan Grainger from August 2007. Handwritten.
CSW: Yes
COPA: Says "finish code" then "write paper" and it explores the bitcoin system with Grainger?
CSW: They'd be notes on the discussion, yes.
COPA: Your COC doc says they were then stored in your office.
CSW: Various offices of mine, yes.
COPA: You wanted funds for this?
CSW: No. I wanted the company to run it in their data center, not pay me to do it.
COPA: In the Granath trial, you said it was working on bitcoin code?
CSW: Timecoin code, but yes.
COPA: You said there's a finished POC here. "Finished doc" do you agree it's "doc" and not "poc"
CSW: Yes.
Mellor: Do you know what happened to Quil?
CSW: A company that became Staples, you can see the Bantex and Quill merged.
COPA: But they can't be real according to QUill because it's Bantex.
CSW: Bantex merged with Quill.
COPA: So you know more about the production of this pad of paper than the producer?
CSW: Lee was a manager of Bantax at the time I was using Quill pad!
COPA: You're making it up as you go!
CSW: Look at the first page. Hamlin was known as Bantex, Bantex purchased Quill. These people wouldn't know!
COPA: Ms Lee confirmed manufactured in Shenzhen.
CSW: It says Hamlin brands right there. Not Quill.
[Not a great exchange for Craig here. Hough getting some momentum?]
COPA: This looks like a pixelation issue.
CSW: Size is wrong.
COPA: going to Madden's report. You wanted it pixelated.
CSW: I said they're not pixelated. Madden isn't a resolution expert, and he shouldn't comment on things which he isn't an expert. I said it's a size difference not pixels. YOU said pixels.
COPA: Madden isn't biased.
CSW: Yes he is.
COPA: And Plax?
CSW: Unskilled. Not sure what else.
COPA: You said you disagree here.
CSW: they're wrong. I stated the company mergers in my statement.
COPA: How would you know?!
CSW: I worked at Staples which was a major supplier of the brand. I knew it intimately.
COPA: The reality is that this is another forged document.
CSW: Your contacts looked at old files, not from personal expertise.
COPA: So, you took these screenshots on mining?
CSW: Ontier would have.
COPA: You mined as Satoshi?
CSW: Just the first few blocks. Then Information Defense company did.
COPA: This is a screenshot again: your reliance docs. [something about] needle in a haystack about pulling up data about this document from the Kleiman trial.
CSW: I don't have admin access to MYOB which was given to @shnodders to analyze.
COPA: This was given to your office at Panopticrypt. The txs were added to the system in 2020 but dated to 2010
CSW: I had to give the american court, but I don't have any access to the data. I literally couldn't have edited anything.
COPA: You said you were required to provide a list of your bitcoin holdings. But didn't have access.
CSW: Correct
COPA: You said "someone" got it for you at the time.
CSW: Yes
COPA: You took the qif file and opened it on your computer to import into MYOB.
CSW: Yes
COPA: You gave the impression of 2009.
CSW: Live extraction was done by Ontier.
COPA: You laboriously entered them in multiple docs?
CSW: No. These docs weren't used here. These were given to Ontier, Alex Partners and others prior to any of the stuff you're saying.
COPA: these weren't authentic.
CSW: they came directly from ONtier. they captured this using a live login.
COPA: But YOU created these in March 2020
CSW: Your error is that I had to create another document. Litigation in the US didn't involve Tulip Trading, so I separated them offline to make sure TTL didn't go into Kleiman case.
COPA: But they looked like genuine MYOB entries looking like 2009, but you produced them in 2020.
CSW: No. MYOB login details will show the account is from 2009, not 2020.
COPA: If Madden hadn't discovered this, you would have let us be ignorant.
CSW: I will give information I'm ordered to give. Ontier could not have handed this over because they didn't have them. I was ordered by Reinhart to hand over X, but I am not giving over things not ordered in this case.
COPA: The COC is bad, is it not?
CSW: I don't have a login or the file. Paralegals at Ontier handled them.
COPA: Can we agree Madden audited and the docs were generated after these dates?
CSW: This specific was Ontier. show me the next file and I'll comment. This one was produced by Ontier downloading them.
COPA: Is this a doc was produced in March 2020?
CSW: This is a doc produced by Ontier logging on in 2019. Either way, I don't even have admin access. They had to help me respond to Reinhart.
COPA: You dispute Madden's findings?
CSW: Yes, they can't be true. The dates don't make sense.
COPA: The reality is that you made entries to invent a narrative.
CSW: False.
COPA: You valued $50/bitcoin, but they didn't have a value, did they?
CSW: Me, Martti and Joseph Vaughn Perling were having discussions about how to build an exchange with Liberty Dollars.
COPA: Are Wright Intl your's?
CSW: Company I founded...
COPA: Madden says txs from 2009-11 here.
CSW: YEs
COPA: there's anomalies in the log of login and log-out events separated by 12 years.
CSW: So, it wasn't used for a long time.
COPA: but there were different logins and outs.
CSW: It doesn't work the way he's proposing. It's not my fault he doesn't understand MYOB.
COPA: the software version used was from August 2009 but the product version was from 2023.
CSW: again, schemas requires updates. If you don't update, you can't access the file.
COPA: Madden goes on to say 2023 version from May, but you deny that that's valid?
CSW: MYOB company noted a major update that no user could use the software unless they accepted changes to the schemas.
COPA: The clock appears to have been set back. Experts agree the records are not made before 2023.
CSW: Incorrect. the update occurred in this period. Ontier and Alex Partners got these in 2019, so their opinion doesn't even make sense.
HOUGH's MIC IS DOWN, I THINK
CSW: I created bitcoin to make sure metadata isn't lost any longer for this reason.
MELLOR BREAKING FOR TEN MIN WHILE THEY SEEK TO FIX MICS
CSW: Company I founded...
COPA: Madden says txs from 2009-11 here.
CSW: YEs
COPA: there's anomalies in the log of login and log-out events separated by 12 years.
CSW: So, it wasn't used for a long time.
COPA: but there were different logins and outs.
CSW: It doesn't work the way he's proposing. It's not my fault he doesn't understand MYOB.
COPA: the software version used was from August 2009 but the product version was from 2023.
CSW: again, schemas requires updates. If you don't update, you can't access the file.
COPA: Madden goes on to say 2023 version from May, but you deny that that's valid?
CSW: MYOB company noted a major update that no user could use the software unless they accepted changes to the schemas.
COPA: The clock appears to have been set back. Experts agree the records are not made before 2023.
CSW: Incorrect. the update occurred in this period. Ontier and Alex Partners got these in 2019, so their opinion doesn't even make sense.
HOUGH's MIC IS DOWN, I THINK
CSW: I created bitcoin to make sure metadata isn't lost any longer for this reason.
MELLOR BREAKING FOR TEN MIN WHILE THEY SEEK TO FIX MICS
BACK FROM BREAK
COPA: You recognize this as a reliance doc?
CSW: Yes
COPA: A version of the white paper in Open Office ODT format?
CSW: It's Timecoin. Bitcoin is a partial implementation of Timecoin.
COPA: But it shares similarities with a different title?
CSW: Similar, but bitcoin is a limited version of broader timecoin idea.
COPA: Does this support your claim to be Satoshi.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Written by you?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Madden says it was edited from a public copy of the white paper.
CSW: False.
COPA: the white paper wasn't written in LaTex
CSW: YEs it was.
COPA: Experts disagree
CSW: I explained how Overleaf didn't compile open symbol.
COPA: The analysis shows you lied.
CSW: Based on silly metadata.
COPA: These are classic signs of manipulation agreed between the experts.
CSW: That isn't a classic sign.
COPA: See the object.
CSW: it's where one would go. It's an anchor. The bitcoin white paper has searchable text because it was made in LaTex. If it just an object, it wouldn't be. This was purposeful.
COPA: this is wrong. It's a classic example of poor edit.
CSW: Anyone can click the bitcoin white paper and cut and paste text right now. If it was an image file, it wouldn't be searchable. You are just wrong.
COPA: it wouldn't compile this obj file.
CSW: Yes it would. Each diagram would be separate so it could be used again. This is also purposeful so the images could be reused and moved to PDF, Word, ODT... They are embedded into the other file formats. the reason you have obj error herer is...
COPA: Interupts. You're incorrect. Moving on. Madden found indentations...
CSW:
CSW: Yes
COPA: A version of the white paper in Open Office ODT format?
CSW: It's Timecoin. Bitcoin is a partial implementation of Timecoin.
COPA: But it shares similarities with a different title?
CSW: Similar, but bitcoin is a limited version of broader timecoin idea.
COPA: Does this support your claim to be Satoshi.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Written by you?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Madden says it was edited from a public copy of the white paper.
CSW: False.
COPA: the white paper wasn't written in LaTex
CSW: YEs it was.
COPA: Experts disagree
CSW: I explained how Overleaf didn't compile open symbol.
COPA: The analysis shows you lied.
CSW: Based on silly metadata.
COPA: These are classic signs of manipulation agreed between the experts.
CSW: That isn't a classic sign.
COPA: See the object.
CSW: it's where one would go. It's an anchor. The bitcoin white paper has searchable text because it was made in LaTex. If it just an object, it wouldn't be. This was purposeful.
COPA: this is wrong. It's a classic example of poor edit.
CSW: Anyone can click the bitcoin white paper and cut and paste text right now. If it was an image file, it wouldn't be searchable. You are just wrong.
COPA: it wouldn't compile this obj file.
CSW: Yes it would. Each diagram would be separate so it could be used again. This is also purposeful so the images could be reused and moved to PDF, Word, ODT... They are embedded into the other file formats. the reason you have obj error herer is...
COPA: Interupts. You're incorrect. Moving on. Madden found indentations...
CSW:
COPA: Interupts. You're incorrect. Moving on. Madden found indentations... Do you accept that these indentations vary, but always make space for specific diagrams. It would be extraordinary for a writer to predict the space for future diagrams.
CSW: I guess he's not a writer. If you look at the Overleaf file, I have those spaces. Without preempting your question, they had been compiled images of standard size. I wrote the images and the doc and I know the space I need.
COPA: So it's compiled with coordinates specified for empty space.
CSW: Yes, and line-spacing and gaps.
COPA: What an extraordinary effort!
CSW: If you read my CFHI textbook, you'll see exactly why I do this.
COPA: You're referring to what conversion?
CSW: LaTex to the other output types.
COPA: So your line breaks matching in all docs is a coincidence?
CSW: No, it's planning and use of LaTex. Steganographic watermarking while writing a book about such practice. Read my book about Stenography and watermarking please.
[LMAO]
CSW: I guess he's not a writer. If you look at the Overleaf file, I have those spaces. Without preempting your question, they had been compiled images of standard size. I wrote the images and the doc and I know the space I need.
COPA: So it's compiled with coordinates specified for empty space.
CSW: Yes, and line-spacing and gaps.
COPA: What an extraordinary effort!
CSW: If you read my CFHI textbook, you'll see exactly why I do this.
COPA: You're referring to what conversion?
CSW: LaTex to the other output types.
COPA: So your line breaks matching in all docs is a coincidence?
CSW: No, it's planning and use of LaTex. Steganographic watermarking while writing a book about such practice. Read my book about Stenography and watermarking please.
[LMAO]
CSW: I use "Sweeve(sp?)" in "R" a stats coding language to make sure that documents always compile the way I want it to look. The default output needs to be coded to be changed.
COPA: Come on! So they match different points in time?
CSW: I don't work linearly.
COPA: So the backdating is just coincidence?
CSW: You assume fallacy about me writing the white paper, so you are backing into reasons why it doesn't make sense. This is why you're so confused.
COPA: Referencing Adam Back and Wei Dai. Do you accept this email is real?
CSW: Yes
COPA: You see Satoshi saying he didn't know about B-money but wanted to credit it?
CSW: I do.
COPA: Satoshi says "I want to expand on your ideas..." to Wei Dai...
CSW: Yes.
COPA: the real Satoshi didn't know about Wei Dai's B-Money at the time you referenced it.
CSW: I made a proposal to Dr. Back. When I was on the cypherpunk list, I had some correspondence. I believed B-money was more than a post on a web page. I thought there was a version, but it never existed in implementation.
COPA: Back made it clear that it wasn't more than a proposal.
CSW: No. I have done proposals for gov agencies for years. Proposals aren't generally just an email.
COPA: This distinction isn't one Satoshi drew
CSW: I assumed Wei would have done it if he was talking about it. Not just an email. I assumed I'd find a paper, but I didn't
COPA: Black is white? Satoshi didn't know about the paper before this time
CSW: I told Back I would reference the Hashcash paper. Not the hashcash page. I knew about both of those. One was a blog post, the other was a paper/proposal. I am pedantic
COPA: Satoshi didn't say any of this though. Reality is you didn't know about Satoshi/Back emails because you aren't Satoshi and didn't know about Wei Dai's work
CSW: this is why your COPA members...
Interrupted...
COPA: Your behavior is so bizarre.
CSW: Are inventors normal? I have over 1000 patents. I have aspergers and am not normal. I am bizarre. Your presumption of bias starts with me not writing the white paper and then thinking it's bizarre in context of your presumptions.
COPA: You copied public versions and tried to make them look like yours.
CSW: That doesn't make any sense. Maybe I'm weird, but your presumption that I set the clock back and stared at the screen to make all this happen is very weird.
COPA: Madden found that your editing work indicated the editing of the public document. Depicting edits here.
CSW: This just looks like I edited my own document.
COPA: nChain didn't exist in 2008, but it's name is in raw data this document alleged to be from 2008?
CSW: again, I have staff. If it's my document, it remains my document.
COPA: This doc isn't from May 2008?
CSW: I don't know the exact date, but 2008, yes.
COPA: If the raw data has nChain in it, it can't be from 2008.
CSW: It means it has been opened at another time. That's a different issue.
COPA: This is backdating.
CSW: It indicates that it was opened in Adobe DC.
COPA: Madden found fonts from 2017
CSW: No, it indicates that it was opened. If I edited it in attempt to forge it, there would be no changes. If I opened in editor, the embedded fonts wouldn't change. the fonts in the white paper are embedded. It doesn't change. If you open in Acrobat, that will make markers to new fonts, but you're wrong here.
COPA: Madden found 4 metadata streams and timestamps from 2008-2019. He found this couldn't be achieved without manipulating the clock.
CSW: False. Opening in Acrobat DC would do this.
COPA: The Adobe version used to create the doc was invalid and didn't refer to any real version.
CSW: He's incorrect.
COPA: this is a forgery
CSW: As I've noted, I can print out a perfect PDF at any time with any metadata. Why would I purposely fail?
COPA: Come on! So they match different points in time?
CSW: I don't work linearly.
COPA: So the backdating is just coincidence?
CSW: You assume fallacy about me writing the white paper, so you are backing into reasons why it doesn't make sense. This is why you're so confused.
COPA: Referencing Adam Back and Wei Dai. Do you accept this email is real?
CSW: Yes
COPA: You see Satoshi saying he didn't know about B-money but wanted to credit it?
CSW: I do.
COPA: Satoshi says "I want to expand on your ideas..." to Wei Dai...
CSW: Yes.
COPA: the real Satoshi didn't know about Wei Dai's B-Money at the time you referenced it.
CSW: I made a proposal to Dr. Back. When I was on the cypherpunk list, I had some correspondence. I believed B-money was more than a post on a web page. I thought there was a version, but it never existed in implementation.
COPA: Back made it clear that it wasn't more than a proposal.
CSW: No. I have done proposals for gov agencies for years. Proposals aren't generally just an email.
COPA: This distinction isn't one Satoshi drew
CSW: I assumed Wei would have done it if he was talking about it. Not just an email. I assumed I'd find a paper, but I didn't
COPA: Black is white? Satoshi didn't know about the paper before this time
CSW: I told Back I would reference the Hashcash paper. Not the hashcash page. I knew about both of those. One was a blog post, the other was a paper/proposal. I am pedantic
COPA: Satoshi didn't say any of this though. Reality is you didn't know about Satoshi/Back emails because you aren't Satoshi and didn't know about Wei Dai's work
CSW: this is why your COPA members...
Interrupted...
COPA: Your behavior is so bizarre.
CSW: Are inventors normal? I have over 1000 patents. I have aspergers and am not normal. I am bizarre. Your presumption of bias starts with me not writing the white paper and then thinking it's bizarre in context of your presumptions.
COPA: You copied public versions and tried to make them look like yours.
CSW: That doesn't make any sense. Maybe I'm weird, but your presumption that I set the clock back and stared at the screen to make all this happen is very weird.
COPA: Madden found that your editing work indicated the editing of the public document. Depicting edits here.
CSW: This just looks like I edited my own document.
COPA: nChain didn't exist in 2008, but it's name is in raw data this document alleged to be from 2008?
CSW: again, I have staff. If it's my document, it remains my document.
COPA: This doc isn't from May 2008?
CSW: I don't know the exact date, but 2008, yes.
COPA: If the raw data has nChain in it, it can't be from 2008.
CSW: It means it has been opened at another time. That's a different issue.
COPA: This is backdating.
CSW: It indicates that it was opened in Adobe DC.
COPA: Madden found fonts from 2017
CSW: No, it indicates that it was opened. If I edited it in attempt to forge it, there would be no changes. If I opened in editor, the embedded fonts wouldn't change. the fonts in the white paper are embedded. It doesn't change. If you open in Acrobat, that will make markers to new fonts, but you're wrong here.
COPA: Madden found 4 metadata streams and timestamps from 2008-2019. He found this couldn't be achieved without manipulating the clock.
CSW: False. Opening in Acrobat DC would do this.
COPA: The Adobe version used to create the doc was invalid and didn't refer to any real version.
CSW: He's incorrect.
COPA: this is a forgery
CSW: As I've noted, I can print out a perfect PDF at any time with any metadata. Why would I purposely fail?
COPA: Well you had to change when you started talking about LaTex.
CSW: Nope.
COPA: This is inauthentic.
CSW: I wrote the white paper. If it's published, it's my publication.
COPA: Madden found lots of backdating evidence for these documents. Touched up text edit history, etc...
CSW: I see that
COPA: Do you agree with his findings?
CSW: No, there's no necessity to do this to make the byte capacity the same.
COPA: You needed to edit this to make a good forgery.
CSW: No, in my textbook about data carving, I show how you can do this on a disk and reset the size of any HEX, so it could be done in the app. You could avoid file damage in multiple ways.
COPA: Is there danger of file damage with the same number of characters?
CSW: No.
COPA: Lamda characters were replaced here
CSW: It's a modified Omega that isn't rendered correctly.
COPA: It's an artifact of conversion from PDF.
CSW: No. What computer doesn't have Lambda? I don't have a computer without a font for Lambda.
COPA: Madden found it was Seggo font.
CSW: The Lambda might be, but this beggars belief that it would become a unicode character. I have fonts that include Lambda. This doesn't make sense.
COPA: Are you surprised that Plax agreed it's forged?
CSW: I am surprised that anyone would allow themselved to overreach. They aren't ligiographic experts. They didn't work in print, but they're analyzing a printed doc which is outside their expertise. The error you suppose is ridiculous.
END OF DAY
Mellor: We will likely be in Court 26 tomorrow. 5 hours of setup for the AV stuff...
Maybe not...
CSW: Nope.
COPA: This is inauthentic.
CSW: I wrote the white paper. If it's published, it's my publication.
COPA: Madden found lots of backdating evidence for these documents. Touched up text edit history, etc...
CSW: I see that
COPA: Do you agree with his findings?
CSW: No, there's no necessity to do this to make the byte capacity the same.
COPA: You needed to edit this to make a good forgery.
CSW: No, in my textbook about data carving, I show how you can do this on a disk and reset the size of any HEX, so it could be done in the app. You could avoid file damage in multiple ways.
COPA: Is there danger of file damage with the same number of characters?
CSW: No.
COPA: Lamda characters were replaced here
CSW: It's a modified Omega that isn't rendered correctly.
COPA: It's an artifact of conversion from PDF.
CSW: No. What computer doesn't have Lambda? I don't have a computer without a font for Lambda.
COPA: Madden found it was Seggo font.
CSW: The Lambda might be, but this beggars belief that it would become a unicode character. I have fonts that include Lambda. This doesn't make sense.
COPA: Are you surprised that Plax agreed it's forged?
CSW: I am surprised that anyone would allow themselved to overreach. They aren't ligiographic experts. They didn't work in print, but they're analyzing a printed doc which is outside their expertise. The error you suppose is ridiculous.
END OF DAY
Mellor: We will likely be in Court 26 tomorrow. 5 hours of setup for the AV stuff...
Maybe not...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
