COPA vs CSW Day 3
CSW is on the witness stand for his second day of cross-examination. COPA began by questioning why CSW disputed the credibility of the forensic document experts, given their string CVs. The judge then intervened and asked CSW why he could not put forward a suitable expert document witness. CSW responded by claiming:
· All the good expert witnesses CSW put forward were fired
· CSW’s old lawyers Travers Smith and Christen Ager-Hanssen put forward the flawed experts
· This is ultimately why CSW fired Travers Smith and appointed new lawyers.
🧵
CSW is on the witness stand for his second day of cross-examination. COPA began by questioning why CSW disputed the credibility of the forensic document experts, given their string CVs. The judge then intervened and asked CSW why he could not put forward a suitable expert document witness. CSW responded by claiming:
· All the good expert witnesses CSW put forward were fired
· CSW’s old lawyers Travers Smith and Christen Ager-Hanssen put forward the flawed experts
· This is ultimately why CSW fired Travers Smith and appointed new lawyers.
🧵
As for how Bitcoin rules are enforced, the judge started asking CSW some questions. CSW responded with confidence and aggression.
Judge: You mentioned it would be easy to get a legal order against a dishonest actor, how do you determine a dishonest actor?
CSW: If you have 2 or 3 large actors, that control say 60%, you can easily have an order against them. Many of the nodes are on AWS, I have many dealings with AWS. If they see an attacker they will shut off the network very quickly.
Judge: Is a dishonest actor anyone not following the rules?
CSW: By definition, as in the whitepaper. This means rules. Rules are more than the agreement. For example rules in a club include UK law. If I run a cricket club, that includes UK law. I can’t set the rules to be whatever I want
Judge: You mentioned it would be easy to get a legal order against a dishonest actor, how do you determine a dishonest actor?
CSW: If you have 2 or 3 large actors, that control say 60%, you can easily have an order against them. Many of the nodes are on AWS, I have many dealings with AWS. If they see an attacker they will shut off the network very quickly.
Judge: Is a dishonest actor anyone not following the rules?
CSW: By definition, as in the whitepaper. This means rules. Rules are more than the agreement. For example rules in a club include UK law. If I run a cricket club, that includes UK law. I can’t set the rules to be whatever I want
One of the documents, with a date in 2005, which was put in evidence by CSW, supporting the claim CSW is Satoshi. The document contained passages that were in the Bitcoin whitepaper, therefore if the document is authentic it would support the claim that CSW was Satoshi. The document included meta data, indicating the document was created by Open Office, using a version of Open Office not released until after the supposed creation date.
CSW appeared to admit in court that he altered the meta data on purpose to make it look like the document was produced in the future, but it was actually produced in 2005. CSW, would not clarify why he did this, but he stated a potential reason was to demonstrate to students that he could alter meta data.
CSW appeared to admit in court that he altered the meta data on purpose to make it look like the document was produced in the future, but it was actually produced in 2005. CSW, would not clarify why he did this, but he stated a potential reason was to demonstrate to students that he could alter meta data.
There is another document put into evidence from CSW, to support the claim he is Satoshi. This document is dated 2008 and has meta data dating the document in 2008
This document contains references to Bitcoin Cash (BCH). Bitcoin Cash was of course created in 2017, well after 2008
This document contains references to Bitcoin Cash (BCH). Bitcoin Cash was of course created in 2017, well after 2008
CSW also included as evidence, what he says was an early draft of the Bitcoin whitepaper, with meta data saying the draft was created in May 2008. If authetic, the document would support the claim that CSW is Satoshi.
The expert witness, Mr Madden, noted that the day, hour, minutes and seconds in the meta data for the creation date matched the "real" published Bitcoin whitepaper from 2009 exactly, only the month and year were different.
CSW was asked about this and if this was a coincidence. CSW's evidence was that this was not a coincidence. CSW explained that the document creation timestamp meta data, was actually manually inserted by him, it was not auto generated. CSW just changed the year and month to match the actual date, and he didn't bother to change the day, hour, minute or seconds.
The expert witness, Mr Madden, noted that the day, hour, minutes and seconds in the meta data for the creation date matched the "real" published Bitcoin whitepaper from 2009 exactly, only the month and year were different.
CSW was asked about this and if this was a coincidence. CSW's evidence was that this was not a coincidence. CSW explained that the document creation timestamp meta data, was actually manually inserted by him, it was not auto generated. CSW just changed the year and month to match the actual date, and he didn't bother to change the day, hour, minute or seconds.
There was another early version of the whitepaper presented, which if authetic, would support the claim that CSW was Satoshi.
This version of the whitepaper, had hyphens removed in places where there were line breaks in the published authetic version of the whitepaper. For instance, ”proof-of-work”, had the 2nd hyphen removed in some instances.
CSW was asked by COPA:
"And it just happened to fall at those points where there
are line breaks in the original of the Bitcoin White Paper? That’s pure chance?"
CSW explained this as follows:
"No, that’s actually setting the the line spacing, etc. One of the reasons I note this , and I have a section in my book, the forensic one, noting that doing some of these weird things as I ’ve got in my LaTeX files is a manner of actually using steganographic watermarking. So while I was writing the White Paper, I did a whole lot of stupid playing around because I was also writing that other book."
This version of the whitepaper, had hyphens removed in places where there were line breaks in the published authetic version of the whitepaper. For instance, ”proof-of-work”, had the 2nd hyphen removed in some instances.
CSW was asked by COPA:
"And it just happened to fall at those points where there
are line breaks in the original of the Bitcoin White Paper? That’s pure chance?"
CSW explained this as follows:
"No, that’s actually setting the the line spacing, etc. One of the reasons I note this , and I have a section in my book, the forensic one, noting that doing some of these weird things as I ’ve got in my LaTeX files is a manner of actually using steganographic watermarking. So while I was writing the White Paper, I did a whole lot of stupid playing around because I was also writing that other book."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
