COPA v Wright, the identity issue – Day 7. 🧵
It's Wright's last full day in the witness box. Tensions got higher yesterday, and I don't see COPA's Jonathan Hough KC relenting today.
Now to sip my morning coffee before I make my way over. 2.5 hours until court is in session. 🕰️
It's Wright's last full day in the witness box. Tensions got higher yesterday, and I don't see COPA's Jonathan Hough KC relenting today.
Now to sip my morning coffee before I make my way over. 2.5 hours until court is in session. 🕰️
I'm getting several questions about attending, so here is some practical advice:
* It's in the Rolls Building (look it up on Google Maps).
* Just show up, it's open to the public.
* Go through security, which is like a light version or airport security. No need for ID or anything.
* Go to 3rd floor (elevator or steps), find Court 26.
* Try not to enter or leave during session – but if you must, bow to the judge in front of the door.
* No standing room – if you can't find a seat, leave and try again during the next break (especially during lunch break around 13:00).
* Put your equipment on mute, be as quiet as possible. Absolutely no laughing out loud unless an intentional joke was told (this is the hard part).
* It's in the Rolls Building (look it up on Google Maps).
* Just show up, it's open to the public.
* Go through security, which is like a light version or airport security. No need for ID or anything.
* Go to 3rd floor (elevator or steps), find Court 26.
* Try not to enter or leave during session – but if you must, bow to the judge in front of the door.
* No standing room – if you can't find a seat, leave and try again during the next break (especially during lunch break around 13:00).
* Put your equipment on mute, be as quiet as possible. Absolutely no laughing out loud unless an intentional joke was told (this is the hard part).
If you'd like to tip me a little for my work, which is entirely optional but deeply appreciated, you can do that to norbert@walletofsatoshi.com or this QR code. 
Back in the seat I had yesterday, with a good view of the witness box. There are still a few spectator seats left.
Here's Wright, in a rather normal grey pinstriped suit. He takes to the witness box.
It's about to begin. The heavy fan comes off, everyone takes the places, the room falls silent and the usher reminds us to turn our phones on silent.
Court is in session.
Mellor: have you discussed how to proceed with [missed]
C: May or may not deploy it in closing. Some outstanding questions.
Mellor: In the Excel spreadsheet, I cannot see the whole text of the Bitcoin wp.
Gunning: [explains]
Mellor: [Rosendal?] has questioned some of the redactions, they are very odd. I understand the ZZZ ones, but [not others].
Craig Orr: About individual subfolders, that is the explanation. We checked those redactions are consistent with claims to privilege.
Mellor: have you discussed how to proceed with [missed]
C: May or may not deploy it in closing. Some outstanding questions.
Mellor: In the Excel spreadsheet, I cannot see the whole text of the Bitcoin wp.
Gunning: [explains]
Mellor: [Rosendal?] has questioned some of the redactions, they are very odd. I understand the ZZZ ones, but [not others].
Craig Orr: About individual subfolders, that is the explanation. We checked those redactions are consistent with claims to privilege.
Mellor: I still think Grabinar needs the opportunity to discuss it with Wright, and Wright may want to add some comments.
C: We acknowledge there is a possibility of Wright to [missed]
C: We acknowledge there is a possibility of Wright to [missed]
C: Wright, about Bitcoin being a cryptocurrency. I contested your claim that Malmi had written that.
W: Prepared isn't written.
C: It can be seen he wrote that part of the post.
W: [About Dave?] There's only one Satoshi.
C: [shows email from Satoshi, quotes "someone came up with the word cryptocurrency, do you like it?"] [shows response from Satoshi to Malmi, quotes Malmi saying "it sounds good, easier to say than p2p cash"]
W: There are also invitations on SourceForge etc
C: Satoshi raised the idea of calling it cryptocurrency
W: No, actually someone else did that on the forums.
C: Malmi agreed with the idea.
W: And he wrote the changes the page etc.
C: Satoshi wrote the […] to call it a cryptocurrency.
W: No, I wrote […] Check the Wayback Machine, you're saying it was created by me, that's postdating.
W: Prepared isn't written.
C: It can be seen he wrote that part of the post.
W: [About Dave?] There's only one Satoshi.
C: [shows email from Satoshi, quotes "someone came up with the word cryptocurrency, do you like it?"] [shows response from Satoshi to Malmi, quotes Malmi saying "it sounds good, easier to say than p2p cash"]
W: There are also invitations on SourceForge etc
C: Satoshi raised the idea of calling it cryptocurrency
W: No, actually someone else did that on the forums.
C: Malmi agreed with the idea.
W: And he wrote the changes the page etc.
C: Satoshi wrote the […] to call it a cryptocurrency.
W: No, I wrote […] Check the Wayback Machine, you're saying it was created by me, that's postdating.
C: Satoshi had no issue with the term, but you say it's a radical departure.
W: I've been saying it's the wrong term for a long time. Cryptocurrency is anonymous.
C: About transmission of private keys. [shows Hodlonaut evidence] You said you asked about access to private keys in 2016.
W: On the drive there was an algorithm that could be calculated.
C: You say you were [able to get access?] Key slices, legal advice from McKinsey etc. You're describing what happened after the signing sessions, you destroyed the hard drive. You said the HD had the first 12 keys.
W: No, the drive was an encrypted system, collated. The AES key unlocked the drive, let you access the algorithm that enables recalculating the keys.
C: What you extracted were keys to the first 12 blocks.
W: Yes, they had been recalculated.
C: So not the first 11 which you said in these proceedings.
W: *My* first 12.
W: I've been saying it's the wrong term for a long time. Cryptocurrency is anonymous.
C: About transmission of private keys. [shows Hodlonaut evidence] You said you asked about access to private keys in 2016.
W: On the drive there was an algorithm that could be calculated.
C: You say you were [able to get access?] Key slices, legal advice from McKinsey etc. You're describing what happened after the signing sessions, you destroyed the hard drive. You said the HD had the first 12 keys.
W: No, the drive was an encrypted system, collated. The AES key unlocked the drive, let you access the algorithm that enables recalculating the keys.
C: What you extracted were keys to the first 12 blocks.
W: Yes, they had been recalculated.
C: So not the first 11 which you said in these proceedings.
W: *My* first 12.
C: You said you had encrypted drive containing 1-11. In Hodlonaut you said 1-12. That's a difference.
W: I definitely had 1-11.
C: So you were wrong about 12?
W: Yes, I made a mistake.
C: You were asked how you gained access to the key slices allowing you to access the algorithm. Asked if it was Uyen Nguyen, you said [some slices]. You didn't identify the other people.
W: I did [in other times], I wasn't asked in Hodlonaut.
C: Shamir schemes.
W: Yes, but you're confusing The Trust with Tulip Trust. [One of them] is a corporate entity.
W: I definitely had 1-11.
C: So you were wrong about 12?
W: Yes, I made a mistake.
C: You were asked how you gained access to the key slices allowing you to access the algorithm. Asked if it was Uyen Nguyen, you said [some slices]. You didn't identify the other people.
W: I did [in other times], I wasn't asked in Hodlonaut.
C: Shamir schemes.
W: Yes, but you're confusing The Trust with Tulip Trust. [One of them] is a corporate entity.
C: [shows transcript, asked when Nguyen became a trustee] You said that trust were holding a number of slices of early Bitcoin keys. You were asked about trust name, you said Tulip Trust.
W: True.
C: Asked what assets the trust had in 2011, you said [missed] You said the trust was created in 2011.
W: It was an iteration on an earlier trust.
C: Asked what slices the trust controlled, you said companies you control overseas, Tulip Trading etc. Asked if Dave Kleiman was involved, you said no. You said Dave was asked to hold parts of documents, he didn't know what he was holding.
W: That was The Trust, an algorithmic scheme.
W: True.
C: Asked what assets the trust had in 2011, you said [missed] You said the trust was created in 2011.
W: It was an iteration on an earlier trust.
C: Asked what slices the trust controlled, you said companies you control overseas, Tulip Trading etc. Asked if Dave Kleiman was involved, you said no. You said Dave was asked to hold parts of documents, he didn't know what he was holding.
W: That was The Trust, an algorithmic scheme.
C: [explains Shamir]
W: No, I'm talking about [references papers] We have filed papers. Shamir is a simpler system. I created automated and non-interactive systems.
C: Asked if you put bitcoin in the trust in 2012, you said no. Asked if you ever did, you said no. Those were questions about Tulip Trust.
W: A bit of both. People confuse The Trust with Tulip Trust. Companies hold the shares, and a variety of assets like intellectual property and software, and Bitcoin.
C: So Tulip Trust had companies, and those companies own Bitcoin.
W: Yes, and I don't own all the companies, so [I can't say I control those bitcoin?]
W: No, I'm talking about [references papers] We have filed papers. Shamir is a simpler system. I created automated and non-interactive systems.
C: Asked if you put bitcoin in the trust in 2012, you said no. Asked if you ever did, you said no. Those were questions about Tulip Trust.
W: A bit of both. People confuse The Trust with Tulip Trust. Companies hold the shares, and a variety of assets like intellectual property and software, and Bitcoin.
C: So Tulip Trust had companies, and those companies own Bitcoin.
W: Yes, and I don't own all the companies, so [I can't say I control those bitcoin?]
C: [shows doc] Here you recall mining in 2009-10 directly into a trust.
W: Information Defense had a trust, pre-Tulip Trust. InfoDefense did the mining and had an agreement to transfer the assets into Wright International.
C: [quotes October 2012 trust document, Tulip Trust 1] It included the bitcoins you would mine in the future.
W: No, there were two different companies, Tulip Trading and Wright International. At this point, WI was 100% owned by shared structures and then through the trust.
C: So what you meant was not that the trust's assets included bitcoin you mined in the past and future, but companies.
W: Effectively, that's what I use the term "corporate" for. I had to list if there's a trust in companies and if I was the beneficiary…
C: You didn't explain that these bitcoin assets you say you mined into a trust were by this stage not owned by you, but by companies.
W: I wasn't ever asked. This is a trust, by definition when I'm not a trustee, there's no direct ownership. I had no access to the trust documents and the management. I put the information I could without documentation.
W: Information Defense had a trust, pre-Tulip Trust. InfoDefense did the mining and had an agreement to transfer the assets into Wright International.
C: [quotes October 2012 trust document, Tulip Trust 1] It included the bitcoins you would mine in the future.
W: No, there were two different companies, Tulip Trading and Wright International. At this point, WI was 100% owned by shared structures and then through the trust.
C: So what you meant was not that the trust's assets included bitcoin you mined in the past and future, but companies.
W: Effectively, that's what I use the term "corporate" for. I had to list if there's a trust in companies and if I was the beneficiary…
C: You didn't explain that these bitcoin assets you say you mined into a trust were by this stage not owned by you, but by companies.
W: I wasn't ever asked. This is a trust, by definition when I'm not a trustee, there's no direct ownership. I had no access to the trust documents and the management. I put the information I could without documentation.
C: You identify the trustee as [lists companies and people]
W: I went through documentation and was handed a variety of trust documents. I said I can't validate them before 2020. I was ordered, I said this is what these documents say.
C: Dave Kleiman having no involvement was wrong, since he was a trustee.
W: This document is false. It's been altered. The signature is just an image.
W: I went through documentation and was handed a variety of trust documents. I said I can't validate them before 2020. I was ordered, I said this is what these documents say.
C: Dave Kleiman having no involvement was wrong, since he was a trustee.
W: This document is false. It's been altered. The signature is just an image.
C: You say the trustee was initially Dave Kleiman. You were wrong to tell the court previously that he was not involved.
W: No, I was not. I had no access to anything, only shown documents. I had no reason to not believe any documentation. The docs came from 3rd party laptops…
C: You just said you didn't have documents.
W: No [missed] These came from employee laptops.
C: You gave this declaration without trust documents saying Kleiman was a trustee, or did you have documents?
W: They are fabricated.
Mellor: Can we focus on the question? Was he a trustee?
W: No, he was not.
Mellor: So why did you say so?
W: I was handed documents, I had to answer yes or no. I had no idea, but I would be in contempt if I didn't answer. I said I had no reason to argue this wasn't valid at the time. Some of the signatures, like from Savannah, were from people I had worked with before.
C: You don't say you don't know who the trustees were. You say you have no reason to disbelieve.
W: After we had the docs analyzed, I nearly ended up with contempt again. I had an argument in court saying it's not real. They kept saying it must be real. I threw it down in court, Reinhardt said I'd be in contempt if I did that again.
W: No, I was not. I had no access to anything, only shown documents. I had no reason to not believe any documentation. The docs came from 3rd party laptops…
C: You just said you didn't have documents.
W: No [missed] These came from employee laptops.
C: You gave this declaration without trust documents saying Kleiman was a trustee, or did you have documents?
W: They are fabricated.
Mellor: Can we focus on the question? Was he a trustee?
W: No, he was not.
Mellor: So why did you say so?
W: I was handed documents, I had to answer yes or no. I had no idea, but I would be in contempt if I didn't answer. I said I had no reason to argue this wasn't valid at the time. Some of the signatures, like from Savannah, were from people I had worked with before.
C: You don't say you don't know who the trustees were. You say you have no reason to disbelieve.
W: After we had the docs analyzed, I nearly ended up with contempt again. I had an argument in court saying it's not real. They kept saying it must be real. I threw it down in court, Reinhardt said I'd be in contempt if I did that again.
C: You [missed]
W: It was done by Diane [missed], I wasn't involved in the setup. After 2011 didn't involve me at all. I've been answering about a trust where I was a blind beneficiary.
C: You said Kleiman was a trustee, but what you meant was you didn't know, but was pressured?
W: I was told…
C: Don't go into anything privileged.
W: That makes it hard to answer.
C: I'm stopping you from waiving privilege.
Mellor: Second question: You name yourself as a trustee.
W: I was listed…
Mellor: Just wait for the question. How can you [remove yourself as a trustee?] without access to the document?
W: It was on two staff laptops, Savannah was a real company. I couldn't go to anyone and ask for the trust document…
Mellor: So why did you nominate yourself as a trustee?
W: I listed what the document said.
Mellor: So did you […] that you weren't a trustee?
W: There were multiple deeds, only one of them real. At the time I wasn't able to ask anyone.
Mellor: So who created all these trustees?
W: One was Diane
Mellor: She drafted it, but who [missed]
W: I spoke to Diane to verify, I also was in touch with Bakers as the new trustees were structured in 2016.
W: It was done by Diane [missed], I wasn't involved in the setup. After 2011 didn't involve me at all. I've been answering about a trust where I was a blind beneficiary.
C: You said Kleiman was a trustee, but what you meant was you didn't know, but was pressured?
W: I was told…
C: Don't go into anything privileged.
W: That makes it hard to answer.
C: I'm stopping you from waiving privilege.
Mellor: Second question: You name yourself as a trustee.
W: I was listed…
Mellor: Just wait for the question. How can you [remove yourself as a trustee?] without access to the document?
W: It was on two staff laptops, Savannah was a real company. I couldn't go to anyone and ask for the trust document…
Mellor: So why did you nominate yourself as a trustee?
W: I listed what the document said.
Mellor: So did you […] that you weren't a trustee?
W: There were multiple deeds, only one of them real. At the time I wasn't able to ask anyone.
Mellor: So who created all these trustees?
W: One was Diane
Mellor: She drafted it, but who [missed]
W: I spoke to Diane to verify, I also was in touch with Bakers as the new trustees were structured in 2016.
W: I didn't get a copy of the deed.
Mellor: And who initiated the trustees in 2016?
W: My wife.
C: [shows Kleiman doc, 2012 deed of trust] It records the list of trustees in your declaration.
W: It was for a join endeavor and a partnership, which I was sued for. I said I never were a partner.
C: Was this the doc [that you said was wrong]
W: Yes.
Mellor: And who initiated the trustees in 2016?
W: My wife.
C: [shows Kleiman doc, 2012 deed of trust] It records the list of trustees in your declaration.
W: It was for a join endeavor and a partnership, which I was sued for. I said I never were a partner.
C: Was this the doc [that you said was wrong]
W: Yes.
C: [shows doc] Tulip Trust [3?] from 2014.
W: This is just the prep for what ended up in the 2016 document. The majority were [miners?] I signed off.
C: [quotes Shamir scheme] You seem to refer to the same encrypted file or drive.
W: No, that document is wrong. Nothing was documented for Tulip Trust 1. A document was created, had problems.
C: You referred to an encrypted file with key slices of blocks 1-12.
W: You used an AES key
C: Are they the same?
W: That encrypted file, yes.
W: This is just the prep for what ended up in the 2016 document. The majority were [miners?] I signed off.
C: [quotes Shamir scheme] You seem to refer to the same encrypted file or drive.
W: No, that document is wrong. Nothing was documented for Tulip Trust 1. A document was created, had problems.
C: You referred to an encrypted file with key slices of blocks 1-12.
W: You used an AES key
C: Are they the same?
W: That encrypted file, yes.
C: [shows 2019 deposition, is asked what prevented him from getting keys, answered about genesis key, hash-chain, multiplied by the curve, index for keys, babble]
W: You're misreading …
C: But you wrote it.
W: Yes.
C: [quotes bonded courier with key slices]
W: That's what he was meant to set up, yes.
C: You were asked if it would enable you to decrypt keys, and you said yes.
W: It's more complex, but yes.
C: Access to encrypted file was going to come through either Kleiman or the bonded courier?
W: He was meant to hand it back or […] but he died.
W: You're misreading …
C: But you wrote it.
W: Yes.
C: [quotes bonded courier with key slices]
W: That's what he was meant to set up, yes.
C: You were asked if it would enable you to decrypt keys, and you said yes.
W: It's more complex, but yes.
C: Access to encrypted file was going to come through either Kleiman or the bonded courier?
W: He was meant to hand it back or […] but he died.
C: Asked about Shamir sharing scheme, you said correct. Separate sets of keys, and you said there are multiple files, each with different combinations [of slices]. One for the genesis block, one for other files. 4-5 versions of keys. Asked which slices needed, you said it's not a number, other people [blabla] Asked about BitMessage from Kleiman to you in 2012 asking about keyslices. You said 4 different Shamir schemes. You said slices 8 and 15 needed to regenerate addresses. And [this slice] related to the genesis block. Disagreement about interpretation of BitMessage. You were asked what you are going to do about the genesis block. [Wright went on with "not the same thing"] Was it the private or public key?
W: Neither. HMAC used a key using what I call a Number 42 process. No private key for the genesis block, but a public key and the genesis block can calculate […] gives you a secret. Used to generate a stream to generate the other keys. HMAC is based on genesis first. It's a symmetric key scheme.
W: Neither. HMAC used a key using what I call a Number 42 process. No private key for the genesis block, but a public key and the genesis block can calculate […] gives you a secret. Used to generate a stream to generate the other keys. HMAC is based on genesis first. It's a symmetric key scheme.
C: About email with MacGregor in 2016. It says 15 key slices, any 8 were required to reconstruct the file. You replied [something was different]
W: Yes, many schemes.
C: You said it was about he first 10 addresses. We have 11 in these proceedings, 10 in Hodlonaut and 10 in Kleiman.
W: No, this is about that particular file.
C: You're discussing access to keys for the signing sessions, and said only 10.
W: No, different file.
C: But the one that addressed […] was 12
W: This was a wallet file encrypted with those 10 in it.
C: That's yet another explanation that hasn't given earlier and is an excuse made up on the fly.
W: No, [missed]
C: You said it was 8 of 15 scheme
W: I did.
C: You said 12 of 15 to access the genesis block.
W: Yes, that's the HMAC key scheme to generate […]
C: It's not what you said there.
W: It is, I'm just not explaining it well. I also mean the first 10.
C: You require 8 of 15 [missed]
C: And there was a 4th to access [intellectual property]?
W: Yes.
W: Yes, many schemes.
C: You said it was about he first 10 addresses. We have 11 in these proceedings, 10 in Hodlonaut and 10 in Kleiman.
W: No, this is about that particular file.
C: You're discussing access to keys for the signing sessions, and said only 10.
W: No, different file.
C: But the one that addressed […] was 12
W: This was a wallet file encrypted with those 10 in it.
C: That's yet another explanation that hasn't given earlier and is an excuse made up on the fly.
W: No, [missed]
C: You said it was 8 of 15 scheme
W: I did.
C: You said 12 of 15 to access the genesis block.
W: Yes, that's the HMAC key scheme to generate […]
C: It's not what you said there.
W: It is, I'm just not explaining it well. I also mean the first 10.
C: You require 8 of 15 [missed]
C: And there was a 4th to access [intellectual property]?
W: Yes.
C: [missed] It was a million bitcoins.
W: I can't say exactly.
C: You told the court since Kleiman died, you couldn't access the bitcoin until the bonded courier.
W: No, I couldn't access key slices. Bitcoin isn't encrypted. […] Doesn't make sense for micropayments.
C: You replied that […]
W: Oh, it's not my bitcoin, it's the trust companies'.
C: You you said put a great amount of bitcoin, you could only access it with Kleiman or courier. That was your story in Kleiman.
W: No, you're confusing […] with the price of Bitcoin. It didn't have [much of] a price in 2011. The average price of a patent in this country in £800k
C: I'm going to pause you there, you have gone well beyond answering my question.
W: I haven't, actually.
C: [Repeats Kleiman/courier]
W: My Lord, if I can finish, Bitcoin was worth 30 cents.
Mellor: Can you concentrate on the trusts in Kleiman.
W: I am. I was caring about the IP. The IP was still valuable. It must be, because "BTC Core" has integrated my patents into BTC. I wanted to protect my IP. Locking THAT away. The cost of Bitcoin, all of that would be £150k. My [other stuff] was 20 times that. I wasn't thinking of my bitcoin, my Lord. If I got bankrupted, I would lose my life's work.
W: I can't say exactly.
C: You told the court since Kleiman died, you couldn't access the bitcoin until the bonded courier.
W: No, I couldn't access key slices. Bitcoin isn't encrypted. […] Doesn't make sense for micropayments.
C: You replied that […]
W: Oh, it's not my bitcoin, it's the trust companies'.
C: You you said put a great amount of bitcoin, you could only access it with Kleiman or courier. That was your story in Kleiman.
W: No, you're confusing […] with the price of Bitcoin. It didn't have [much of] a price in 2011. The average price of a patent in this country in £800k
C: I'm going to pause you there, you have gone well beyond answering my question.
W: I haven't, actually.
C: [Repeats Kleiman/courier]
W: My Lord, if I can finish, Bitcoin was worth 30 cents.
Mellor: Can you concentrate on the trusts in Kleiman.
W: I am. I was caring about the IP. The IP was still valuable. It must be, because "BTC Core" has integrated my patents into BTC. I wanted to protect my IP. Locking THAT away. The cost of Bitcoin, all of that would be £150k. My [other stuff] was 20 times that. I wasn't thinking of my bitcoin, my Lord. If I got bankrupted, I would lose my life's work.
C: It is inconceivable that you put this sum beyond your reach. Whether it was 30 billion, 1 million, or as you have dropped it to now, 150k
W: I gave up property rights to keep the IP. Bitcoin was a rounding error.
Mellor: Can we just be clear: you're putting these assets out of your reach. They could only be recovered with the help of Kleiman or the arrival of the bonded courier?
W: Not entirely. Everything was in my head. If they can't access it, they can't. Worst case, I get bankrupted, and in 2020 I come out and patent all my innovation.
W: I gave up property rights to keep the IP. Bitcoin was a rounding error.
Mellor: Can we just be clear: you're putting these assets out of your reach. They could only be recovered with the help of Kleiman or the arrival of the bonded courier?
W: Not entirely. Everything was in my head. If they can't access it, they can't. Worst case, I get bankrupted, and in 2020 I come out and patent all my innovation.
Mellor: Dr Wright, we'll take five minutes.
😓
😓
Back.
C: You told us you made arrangements in 2011-12 to settle assets in trusts to protect them from bankruptcy. What specific property rights?
W: InfoDefense into Wright International. WI hold database rights and copyright. There were 1200 ideas I had created around cryptographic techniques, all sorts of things.
C: Did you patent anything at the time?
W: I believe one, with Wilson.
C: [shows MacGregor email, April 2016] Is it genuine?
W: Hmm, possibly, there are modified versions of it.
C: There are indeed, but […]
W: I can't tell on its face.
C: [about obtaining private keys for signing sessions] MacGregor lists trustees. Uyen, Savannah etc. Do you recall MacGregor communicating to you about seven trustees?
W: I do.
C: They appear to correspond to the trust deed that you said was not authentic. Is that the doc you think MacGregor had?
W: I don't actually know.
C: It appears to have the same content.
W: It does.
C: It clearly looked like a [?] trust document. He asked how many slices for each trustee. You said you needed one out of your direct control: Mayaka. This has you saying that you and Ramona can sign for Co1n.
W: That's not blocks 1 and 8, that's key slices.
C: Do you recall having said that to him in 2016?
W: Something along those lines.
C: You told us you made arrangements in 2011-12 to settle assets in trusts to protect them from bankruptcy. What specific property rights?
W: InfoDefense into Wright International. WI hold database rights and copyright. There were 1200 ideas I had created around cryptographic techniques, all sorts of things.
C: Did you patent anything at the time?
W: I believe one, with Wilson.
C: [shows MacGregor email, April 2016] Is it genuine?
W: Hmm, possibly, there are modified versions of it.
C: There are indeed, but […]
W: I can't tell on its face.
C: [about obtaining private keys for signing sessions] MacGregor lists trustees. Uyen, Savannah etc. Do you recall MacGregor communicating to you about seven trustees?
W: I do.
C: They appear to correspond to the trust deed that you said was not authentic. Is that the doc you think MacGregor had?
W: I don't actually know.
C: It appears to have the same content.
W: It does.
C: It clearly looked like a [?] trust document. He asked how many slices for each trustee. You said you needed one out of your direct control: Mayaka. This has you saying that you and Ramona can sign for Co1n.
W: That's not blocks 1 and 8, that's key slices.
C: Do you recall having said that to him in 2016?
W: Something along those lines.
C: Do you think that key distribution is correct?
W: I listed what I had from a spreadsheet.
C: Do you still have it?
W: Don't know, it's probably in the discovery platform.
C: I don't think so. It says Kleiman had [several] key slices. Any 8 of the 15 could be used to reconstruct the key files. Did you say that to MacGregor?
W: I copied it from the spreadsheet. [missed]
C: It said you originally had 7 of the 8 slices and by April 2016 had acquired 9. Kleiman is said to have [different slices]. Other details are also different. There are 5 other versions of this email, all dated May 16 2016, all with slightly different content, including allocation of key slices.
W: I knew there were [missed]
C: Why were there so many different versions?
W: Some of them ended up on staff laptops. Ramona's email was accessed by an ex-staff member.
C: Why do you say [missed]
W: People working with [Ira?] Kleiman etc
C: It's not very obvious why adjusting key allocation would have that affect.
W: You're asking me to analyze other people's minds. I can't do that, I'm autistic.
W: I listed what I had from a spreadsheet.
C: Do you still have it?
W: Don't know, it's probably in the discovery platform.
C: I don't think so. It says Kleiman had [several] key slices. Any 8 of the 15 could be used to reconstruct the key files. Did you say that to MacGregor?
W: I copied it from the spreadsheet. [missed]
C: It said you originally had 7 of the 8 slices and by April 2016 had acquired 9. Kleiman is said to have [different slices]. Other details are also different. There are 5 other versions of this email, all dated May 16 2016, all with slightly different content, including allocation of key slices.
W: I knew there were [missed]
C: Why were there so many different versions?
W: Some of them ended up on staff laptops. Ramona's email was accessed by an ex-staff member.
C: Why do you say [missed]
W: People working with [Ira?] Kleiman etc
C: It's not very obvious why adjusting key allocation would have that affect.
W: You're asking me to analyze other people's minds. I can't do that, I'm autistic.
C: In 2016, you told MacGregor that access to key slices to private keys was through arrangements in trust document.
W: No, I was saying it was in The Trust, a algorithmic trust structure.
C: He said "I have a trust document". You didn't say you had no knowledge of it.
W: He was fishing for information, I wasn't going to tell him.
C: You gave him requested information about key allocatoin.
W: I gave him what he asked for. Already I didn't trust MacGregor. Wasn't going into more than we had agreed.
C: So you told him that to gain access you needed key slices from the trustees he had identified through the trust deed.
W: No, I used the spreadsheet I had.
C: In Kleiman you told a similar story.
W: No, I actually said about the key slices. I didn't know about the accuracy about the document at the time.
C: In Hodlonaut you took a different line, [missed]
W: The trustee there was actually not real. I didn't know who the trustees were in the beginning [missed]
C: In reality, Tulip Trust is an invention for the ATO proceedings, isn't it.
W: No, it goes further back than that. [Nineties, explains]
C: You repurposed the story in Kleiman when you needed to explain away not having access to the addresses.
W: No, not having addresses would have ended he proceedings early, saved me a lot of money.
C: You had committed to being Satoshi.
W: No, I didn't talk about it at all, I was being asked under oath. That lead to some of your clients delisting Bitcoin, BSV, CZ came out and said no more of this…
W: No, I was saying it was in The Trust, a algorithmic trust structure.
C: He said "I have a trust document". You didn't say you had no knowledge of it.
W: He was fishing for information, I wasn't going to tell him.
C: You gave him requested information about key allocatoin.
W: I gave him what he asked for. Already I didn't trust MacGregor. Wasn't going into more than we had agreed.
C: So you told him that to gain access you needed key slices from the trustees he had identified through the trust deed.
W: No, I used the spreadsheet I had.
C: In Kleiman you told a similar story.
W: No, I actually said about the key slices. I didn't know about the accuracy about the document at the time.
C: In Hodlonaut you took a different line, [missed]
W: The trustee there was actually not real. I didn't know who the trustees were in the beginning [missed]
C: In reality, Tulip Trust is an invention for the ATO proceedings, isn't it.
W: No, it goes further back than that. [Nineties, explains]
C: You repurposed the story in Kleiman when you needed to explain away not having access to the addresses.
W: No, not having addresses would have ended he proceedings early, saved me a lot of money.
C: You had committed to being Satoshi.
W: No, I didn't talk about it at all, I was being asked under oath. That lead to some of your clients delisting Bitcoin, BSV, CZ came out and said no more of this…
C: Let me stop you there. You said you were Satoshi in 2016. If you had denied it in Kleiman, you would have been publicly confessing to being a liar.
W: Not really, I could have said I lost the keys, I could have lied, ended it quickly. I didn't want to come out in 2016, I didn't want to later, I hadn't said anything, I hadn't discussed it at all.
C: You repurposed it again when seeking to explain difficulties in accessing private keys.
W: No, I did not.
C: [shows witness statement] You said no public or private key was associated with the genesis block. You said yesterday there are no cryptographic means. [shows interview transcript, 2016] When asked about proof, you said "I'm not going to jump through anyone's proof] [Hough is reading his tons of swear words in court, omg] You said you had the means to prove with genesis block.
W: No, I was very angry. The anchor is part of a hash chain. The ECD hash chain allows the genesis block to be an anchor. For my key structure I chose the genesis block.
W: Not really, I could have said I lost the keys, I could have lied, ended it quickly. I didn't want to come out in 2016, I didn't want to later, I hadn't said anything, I hadn't discussed it at all.
C: You repurposed it again when seeking to explain difficulties in accessing private keys.
W: No, I did not.
C: [shows witness statement] You said no public or private key was associated with the genesis block. You said yesterday there are no cryptographic means. [shows interview transcript, 2016] When asked about proof, you said "I'm not going to jump through anyone's proof] [Hough is reading his tons of swear words in court, omg] You said you had the means to prove with genesis block.
W: No, I was very angry. The anchor is part of a hash chain. The ECD hash chain allows the genesis block to be an anchor. For my key structure I chose the genesis block.
C: There is a key, isn't it.
W: No, there is a number, doesn't mean it's a key.
C: Cryptocurrency experts in this case agree there was a public key used in coinbase transaction in genesis block. Do you agree?
W: No, neither do cryptographers. Nicholson (sp), Dr. Gau, neither have studied cryptography in any depth. A string of numbers doesn't make it a key.
C: I put it to you again, there is a public key associated with the genesis block, and the real Satoshi would not make the mistake of saying there's no key.
W: Firstly, I am Satoshi. I wrote about wormhole to burn bitcoin. The structure linked to unknown keys. I said we can create something that is provably unspendable. If I just take "AAAAA" and say this is my key, it is incredibly unlkely a private key exists for it. You can provably do that at the same time. People use "deadbeaf" etc, it's not a private key.
W: No, there is a number, doesn't mean it's a key.
C: Cryptocurrency experts in this case agree there was a public key used in coinbase transaction in genesis block. Do you agree?
W: No, neither do cryptographers. Nicholson (sp), Dr. Gau, neither have studied cryptography in any depth. A string of numbers doesn't make it a key.
C: I put it to you again, there is a public key associated with the genesis block, and the real Satoshi would not make the mistake of saying there's no key.
W: Firstly, I am Satoshi. I wrote about wormhole to burn bitcoin. The structure linked to unknown keys. I said we can create something that is provably unspendable. If I just take "AAAAA" and say this is my key, it is incredibly unlkely a private key exists for it. You can provably do that at the same time. People use "deadbeaf" etc, it's not a private key.
C: ATO claims. Tax rebate claims+
W: Not me, companies I was with.
C: There was an individual tax dispute, and corporate.
W: 2013-14, there were no tax disputes. 2014-16 there were corporate, not personal.
C: We'll focus on one aspect. In 2013 you began to make claims of mining Bitcoin.
W: In 2013? No, I did not. The 2013 ruling was based on 2009-10. 2013 was about audits [etc]
C: The private ruling was about assumed facts.
W: I was audited 2009-12, I was in court dealing with this in detail in 2011-12. All the info was based on what was given in court. Handed over in 2009.
C: You made my point about the private ruling. Co1n made tax reclaims.
W: No, R&D tax concessions.
C: That claim included a tax offset claim for sums paid to W&K. It included claims for $200k supposedly received from David Reece. You have claimed in your Satoshi's Vision book he gave you nots.
W: Yes, back in the nineties.
W: Not me, companies I was with.
C: There was an individual tax dispute, and corporate.
W: 2013-14, there were no tax disputes. 2014-16 there were corporate, not personal.
C: We'll focus on one aspect. In 2013 you began to make claims of mining Bitcoin.
W: In 2013? No, I did not. The 2013 ruling was based on 2009-10. 2013 was about audits [etc]
C: The private ruling was about assumed facts.
W: I was audited 2009-12, I was in court dealing with this in detail in 2011-12. All the info was based on what was given in court. Handed over in 2009.
C: You made my point about the private ruling. Co1n made tax reclaims.
W: No, R&D tax concessions.
C: That claim included a tax offset claim for sums paid to W&K. It included claims for $200k supposedly received from David Reece. You have claimed in your Satoshi's Vision book he gave you nots.
W: Yes, back in the nineties.
C: [shows ATO "Reasons for decision" doc]
W: It's only an interim doc.
C: It's a set of reasons for decision.
W: No, it's the high-net-worth division who had no rights to do this.
C: It was [from the ATO]
W: [someone] was there in 2013 when everything got reversed.
C: Wait a second – you're very keen to go back to your personal case. We're not talking about that. It's a separate set of claims relating to Co1n.
W: They're all linked. Integyrs and InfoDefense went into liquidation.
C: ATO addressed your claim to pay Reece. [quotes ATO that Reece held bitcoin in 2013. Reece must have transferred them to his own address 3 days before his death, but was in a nursing home]. Were you responsible for ATO being informed that Reece was provided with private keys in June 2013?
W: No, that's not what they were told He was transferred Bitcoin at a particular time, one year before this. They then chose to do the audit after he died so he couldn't prove anything.
C: So they [misrepresented?]
W: Yes, that's why they didn't have the r&d team involved.
C: ATO communicated with his four daughters. They had no knowledge of you, the bitcoin or the suggestion that Reece was doing consulting work.
W: None of them got involved.
C: It was value at 200 million dollars, and they weren't aware?
W: That's completely wrong. It was based on the transfer of notes, it was worth a lot less. But bitcoin went up in price, I still transferred it.
W: It's only an interim doc.
C: It's a set of reasons for decision.
W: No, it's the high-net-worth division who had no rights to do this.
C: It was [from the ATO]
W: [someone] was there in 2013 when everything got reversed.
C: Wait a second – you're very keen to go back to your personal case. We're not talking about that. It's a separate set of claims relating to Co1n.
W: They're all linked. Integyrs and InfoDefense went into liquidation.
C: ATO addressed your claim to pay Reece. [quotes ATO that Reece held bitcoin in 2013. Reece must have transferred them to his own address 3 days before his death, but was in a nursing home]. Were you responsible for ATO being informed that Reece was provided with private keys in June 2013?
W: No, that's not what they were told He was transferred Bitcoin at a particular time, one year before this. They then chose to do the audit after he died so he couldn't prove anything.
C: So they [misrepresented?]
W: Yes, that's why they didn't have the r&d team involved.
C: ATO communicated with his four daughters. They had no knowledge of you, the bitcoin or the suggestion that Reece was doing consulting work.
W: None of them got involved.
C: It was value at 200 million dollars, and they weren't aware?
W: That's completely wrong. It was based on the transfer of notes, it was worth a lot less. But bitcoin went up in price, I still transferred it.
C: They might not have heard of you, but they were unaware of consulting work, at 200 million dollars.
W: [Sighs loudly] I said very categorically I had going back to the 90s I had discussed mathematical concepts with Reece. I said I would give him a percentage, and I did. I made a promise, and he acted just as a professor.
C: This is another incident of you [working with] a person who died, just as our queen [?], isn't it.
W: No, [missed]
C: How old was Reece when he was doing the supposed consulting work and received the bitcoin?
W: As I said…
C: Simple question.
W: Around the same age as my grandfather.
C: Which is?
W: I don't know.
C: Around 90, in a nursing home.
W: When he originally did it, he was [missed]. Four years before.
W: [Sighs loudly] I said very categorically I had going back to the 90s I had discussed mathematical concepts with Reece. I said I would give him a percentage, and I did. I made a promise, and he acted just as a professor.
C: This is another incident of you [working with] a person who died, just as our queen [?], isn't it.
W: No, [missed]
C: How old was Reece when he was doing the supposed consulting work and received the bitcoin?
W: As I said…
C: Simple question.
W: Around the same age as my grandfather.
C: Which is?
W: I don't know.
C: Around 90, in a nursing home.
W: When he originally did it, he was [missed]. Four years before.
C: You were heavily involved with ATO.
W: Not heavily. [goes into work] AusIndustry etc, other people dealth with the ATO.
C: [shows Wright's IT security blog, captured by Wayback Machine in 2014]
W: It's not an IT security blog, I talked about code and other things.
C: It was captured in 2014.
W: That was the first capture, yes.
C: You can see it says Bitcoin. "This is decentralized…" Wright, was this a genuine post from 2009?
W: First, it's not my website. Secondly, I don't post on my blog, ever. My current one is run by third-parties. The previous ones also.
C: Do you say to the best of your knowledge it is from 2009?
W: I don't know, I don't run blogs.
C: Who was responsible for it in 2009?
W: David, not Kleiman, after that another person. Later people at Panopticrypt, then Hotwire, then DeMorgan.
C: But you can't say in 2009?
W: David, can't remember last name. He was a consultant with InfoDefense. I think he was self-employed.
W: Not heavily. [goes into work] AusIndustry etc, other people dealth with the ATO.
C: [shows Wright's IT security blog, captured by Wayback Machine in 2014]
W: It's not an IT security blog, I talked about code and other things.
C: It was captured in 2014.
W: That was the first capture, yes.
C: You can see it says Bitcoin. "This is decentralized…" Wright, was this a genuine post from 2009?
W: First, it's not my website. Secondly, I don't post on my blog, ever. My current one is run by third-parties. The previous ones also.
C: Do you say to the best of your knowledge it is from 2009?
W: I don't know, I don't run blogs.
C: Who was responsible for it in 2009?
W: David, not Kleiman, after that another person. Later people at Panopticrypt, then Hotwire, then DeMorgan.
C: But you can't say in 2009?
W: David, can't remember last name. He was a consultant with InfoDefense. I think he was self-employed.
C: About Linux post. If it was an actual post from then, it would have been blowing you cover as Satoshi?
W: Not necessarily. It would be like Hal Finney saing "Running Bitcoin".
C: On the left, we have a list of pages over time. Two blog posts in January 2009. It's showing a post link from 2009. In the index, there is only one index in the period. [shows capture from November 2011] One article in January 2009 there too. [shows capture from [missed year]] Same result. Now we see two articles. 2014, two articles again. May 2014, two articles. May 17, 2014, two articles. The captures showing two articles don't show the names of the articles. In June 2014 showed two. Likely added between 2013 and February 2014, agree?
W: No. In Blogger, you can hide posts. All of this is linked to the Gizmodo outing. It was also used by Maxwell as part of the discrediting, so he must have known how it came about.
W: Not necessarily. It would be like Hal Finney saing "Running Bitcoin".
C: On the left, we have a list of pages over time. Two blog posts in January 2009. It's showing a post link from 2009. In the index, there is only one index in the period. [shows capture from November 2011] One article in January 2009 there too. [shows capture from [missed year]] Same result. Now we see two articles. 2014, two articles again. May 2014, two articles. May 17, 2014, two articles. The captures showing two articles don't show the names of the articles. In June 2014 showed two. Likely added between 2013 and February 2014, agree?
W: No. In Blogger, you can hide posts. All of this is linked to the Gizmodo outing. It was also used by Maxwell as part of the discrediting, so he must have known how it came about.
C: I suggest the plain meaning of these captures is that this article was added and backdated in late 2013 or early 2014.
W: I would say more likely 2014, which is when my troubles with Kleiman started.
C: That was before any disagreement with Kleiman.
W: I thought so too, but I was wrong. I discovered he had legal advice before he sent his first email to me.
C: So you suggest Kleiman was responsible for putting this backdated post on your blog?
W: No, I said it would be linked. I had other disgruntled employees who worked with him.
C: So some ex-employees, perhaps working with Kleiman, put it on your blog and backdated it to 2009? That's your working hypotehesis?
W: No, I don't have one. All I know is that it shouldn't be there. [Wired and Gizmodo]
C: The simple explanation was that it was put there in 2014 because that was the time you started claiming to be Satoshi.
W: No, told ATO before that, way back in 2009.
C: You know that's disputed.
W: I would say more likely 2014, which is when my troubles with Kleiman started.
C: That was before any disagreement with Kleiman.
W: I thought so too, but I was wrong. I discovered he had legal advice before he sent his first email to me.
C: So you suggest Kleiman was responsible for putting this backdated post on your blog?
W: No, I said it would be linked. I had other disgruntled employees who worked with him.
C: So some ex-employees, perhaps working with Kleiman, put it on your blog and backdated it to 2009? That's your working hypotehesis?
W: No, I don't have one. All I know is that it shouldn't be there. [Wired and Gizmodo]
C: The simple explanation was that it was put there in 2014 because that was the time you started claiming to be Satoshi.
W: No, told ATO before that, way back in 2009.
C: You know that's disputed.
C: You said you told ATO in 2009 you created Bitcoin?
W: Yes, actually I did.
C: Do you have any documents?
W: Yes, that's why the private ruling included mining in 2009.
C: Any docs in these proceedings?
C: Is there any docs from 2009-10 showing you telling the ATO you were Satoshi?
W: Two points, one: I don't have any information [missed] anymore. Second, you don't just say something after an audit. The ATO has the information [missed]
C: They're working on assumed facts.
Mellor: Wright, if you don't answer the question, I'll assume you have no answer. So are there any docs? You haven't answered it.
W: I don't actually know, My Lord. [other people etc]
W: Yes, actually I did.
C: Do you have any documents?
W: Yes, that's why the private ruling included mining in 2009.
C: Any docs in these proceedings?
C: Is there any docs from 2009-10 showing you telling the ATO you were Satoshi?
W: Two points, one: I don't have any information [missed] anymore. Second, you don't just say something after an audit. The ATO has the information [missed]
C: They're working on assumed facts.
Mellor: Wright, if you don't answer the question, I'll assume you have no answer. So are there any docs? You haven't answered it.
W: I don't actually know, My Lord. [other people etc]
C: [shows capture of blog from October 2015] The article now reads [quotes]. At some point in 2014-2015, the blog post referred to Bitcoin being released was deleted and replaced with this teasing one.
W: Yes, this was around the time [Gizmodo and Wired]
C: So somebody repeated the trick in late 2015?
W: To be honest, I have no idea. I don't even look at my blog. I send text, I write papers, they get sent and loaded.
C: My Lord, Grabiner has made the point that [this is a good time for a break]
We're taking five minutes.
W: Yes, this was around the time [Gizmodo and Wired]
C: So somebody repeated the trick in late 2015?
W: To be honest, I have no idea. I don't even look at my blog. I send text, I write papers, they get sent and loaded.
C: My Lord, Grabiner has made the point that [this is a good time for a break]
We're taking five minutes.
Back.
C: Your dealings with Matthews in 2014-15. You first established contact in late January 2014. He introduced you to MacGregor of nTrust. [shows email, February 2014] Matthews made contact you with and MacGregor. You're suggesting you've been working on a payment solution.
W: In 2014 I had a video call, could have been Skype.
C: But the talks didn't progress at the time.
W: No, nothing happened.
C: And you wrote Luis Kleiman [missed] [shows reliance doc, DeMorgan investor pack "for Stefan Matthews by Craig Wright"]
W: i didn't actually write it.
C: This was one of those impressive PowerPoints that you […]
W: I had some people do very good PowerPoint presentation.
C: Your dealings with Matthews in 2014-15. You first established contact in late January 2014. He introduced you to MacGregor of nTrust. [shows email, February 2014] Matthews made contact you with and MacGregor. You're suggesting you've been working on a payment solution.
W: In 2014 I had a video call, could have been Skype.
C: But the talks didn't progress at the time.
W: No, nothing happened.
C: And you wrote Luis Kleiman [missed] [shows reliance doc, DeMorgan investor pack "for Stefan Matthews by Craig Wright"]
W: i didn't actually write it.
C: This was one of those impressive PowerPoints that you […]
W: I had some people do very good PowerPoint presentation.
W: I contacted Stefan again in 2015. I didn't know how to get out of my issues with the tax office.
C: Matthews said your companies [had scaled down]
W: It was a quarter of what it was. We had problems transferring money, with the ATO. We had an offer for 10 million a year.
C: Any documents about that?
W: I don't know what's been disclosed, but they're in disclosure.
C: Doesn't ring a bell with me. This is about a meeting involving yourself and Matthews.
W: No, Stefan had put together one with Calvin Ayre, one of the first times I met him. Proposed selling bitcoin to him, Calvin wasn't interested at the time.
W: Stefan brokered it.
C: Reference to a whole series of programs, ATO, supercomputers, not just bitcoin.
W: All of this is Bitcoin related. SCADA etc.
C: But not Bitcoin as a system.
W: Selling bitcoin, no. I wanted investment in the company, to make it more.
C: So this initial meeting in April 2015, you were upfront you were Satoshi and that you were selling bitcoin.
W: Selling bitcoin had nothing to do with my being Satoshi.
C: What were you talking about in this meeting?
W: Bitcoin, as in BTC. I was trying to do an OTC trade.
C: Matthews said your companies [had scaled down]
W: It was a quarter of what it was. We had problems transferring money, with the ATO. We had an offer for 10 million a year.
C: Any documents about that?
W: I don't know what's been disclosed, but they're in disclosure.
C: Doesn't ring a bell with me. This is about a meeting involving yourself and Matthews.
W: No, Stefan had put together one with Calvin Ayre, one of the first times I met him. Proposed selling bitcoin to him, Calvin wasn't interested at the time.
W: Stefan brokered it.
C: Reference to a whole series of programs, ATO, supercomputers, not just bitcoin.
W: All of this is Bitcoin related. SCADA etc.
C: But not Bitcoin as a system.
W: Selling bitcoin, no. I wanted investment in the company, to make it more.
C: So this initial meeting in April 2015, you were upfront you were Satoshi and that you were selling bitcoin.
W: Selling bitcoin had nothing to do with my being Satoshi.
C: What were you talking about in this meeting?
W: Bitcoin, as in BTC. I was trying to do an OTC trade.
C: Where does it refer to you selling bitcoin tokens?
W: It doesn't.
C: So you had a meeting about selling bitcoin, but the entire presentation was irrelevant?
W: No. Calvin was running Bodog, I wanted to show him how bitcoin could be good for his company.
C: On its face, this gives every indication that the meeting was about investing in your company, not just selling bitcoin.
W: It ended up just being the OTC part.
C: You were seeking investment to get your companies out of a financial hole.
W: The cost of doing everything I was doing was the hole. I was spending [millions] a year.
W: Just to give you an idea, My Lord [rants to the judge]
C: I'll pause you there. Moving on.
W: It doesn't.
C: So you had a meeting about selling bitcoin, but the entire presentation was irrelevant?
W: No. Calvin was running Bodog, I wanted to show him how bitcoin could be good for his company.
C: On its face, this gives every indication that the meeting was about investing in your company, not just selling bitcoin.
W: It ended up just being the OTC part.
C: You were seeking investment to get your companies out of a financial hole.
W: The cost of doing everything I was doing was the hole. I was spending [millions] a year.
W: Just to give you an idea, My Lord [rants to the judge]
C: I'll pause you there. Moving on.
C: [shows email] June 2019, Ayre emailed MacGregor. He asked to prepare a document about cryptocurrency and nTrust. MacGregor replies suggesting meeting in Manila. [shows email between Matthews and Ayre] Ayre says he's back from a trip, meeting a lawyer on LoI. Was it about your businesses?
W: No, Calvin had a lot of other businesses. The deal was with Rob.
C: You refer to having a stake of claim. Were you looking to have your legal fees funded through a potential deal?
W: Potentially.
C: [shows email from Ayre to Wright] He asks for a spreadsheet [term sheet?] First part refers to ATO. Ayre was asking how much money you needed as a fighting fund to deal with the ATO. You respond referring to an 18M option, r&d in Centrebet, suggesting tax rebate. Fancy tax restructuring later.
W: No, Calvin had a lot of other businesses. The deal was with Rob.
C: You refer to having a stake of claim. Were you looking to have your legal fees funded through a potential deal?
W: Potentially.
C: [shows email from Ayre to Wright] He asks for a spreadsheet [term sheet?] First part refers to ATO. Ayre was asking how much money you needed as a fighting fund to deal with the ATO. You respond referring to an 18M option, r&d in Centrebet, suggesting tax rebate. Fancy tax restructuring later.
C: [email to Ayre] You say "I will not leave a debt ever". Need to pay Clayton Utz. You were asking Ayre for a fighting fund to deal with ATO.
W: No, there were multiple deals going on. I would sell the 100k bitcoin, put against the money. An escrow they held.
C: We can see Ayre responded Matthews would jump on a plane. Ayre to send Matthews and MacGregor to Australia to drill into your books?
W: No, Rob had extensive dealings with Bodog. If this worked, it would help nTrust. They did money transfer, and Bitcoin would simplify that. Two things: Stefan coming down to represent a wider deal, and Rob coming down for an escrow deal.
W: No, there were multiple deals going on. I would sell the 100k bitcoin, put against the money. An escrow they held.
C: We can see Ayre responded Matthews would jump on a plane. Ayre to send Matthews and MacGregor to Australia to drill into your books?
W: No, Rob had extensive dealings with Bodog. If this worked, it would help nTrust. They did money transfer, and Bitcoin would simplify that. Two things: Stefan coming down to represent a wider deal, and Rob coming down for an escrow deal.
C: [shows email between Ramona and Alan Peterson] Ramona writes Stefan coming to the office, try to make it look like we're doing business. Ramona said we need to get people to come in every day. "The Canadians" refer to Matthews and MacGregor?
W: No, Matthews has never been a Canadian
C: Your wife was desperately trying to make it look like the office was in business.
W: People worked from home. Having them in the office was important.
C: You were trying to set up a fake office.
W: No, we still had some employers. I didn't want to sell out [missed]
We have broken for lunch.
W: No, Matthews has never been a Canadian
C: Your wife was desperately trying to make it look like the office was in business.
W: People worked from home. Having them in the office was important.
C: You were trying to set up a fake office.
W: No, we still had some employers. I didn't want to sell out [missed]
We have broken for lunch.
Back.
C: Communications of June 2015 with MacGregor, Matthews and Ayre. This document is the first version of a terms document. [shows doc with signatures] This provided for a newco and DR Technologies Ltd to enter an agreement for consultancy for up to two years. A convertible loan. And for the rights to equities held in a blind trust. A services agreement between newco and yourself, $1m rights payment, then yearly payments. Grant of exclusive rights to your life story. Then a subsidiary for r&d purposes. [shows doc] A further version of the terms. [Signed by Ramona and Matthews] Intended to supersede?
W: I'm not sure.
C: Let's see if we can refresh your memory. Some notes, recognize?
W: Yes, still [not sure]
C: Clayton Utz. [quotes convertible loans should only be used for solicitors] It's been restricted in this version?
W: Yes, I still can't [missed]
C: The equity doesn't appear.
W: [not sure why]
C: By this stage, a bailout deal had been done.
W: No, it was to lock the IP to protect from ATO. I had other options, wasn't too worried. Didn't want to sell it to [missed]
C: Communications of June 2015 with MacGregor, Matthews and Ayre. This document is the first version of a terms document. [shows doc with signatures] This provided for a newco and DR Technologies Ltd to enter an agreement for consultancy for up to two years. A convertible loan. And for the rights to equities held in a blind trust. A services agreement between newco and yourself, $1m rights payment, then yearly payments. Grant of exclusive rights to your life story. Then a subsidiary for r&d purposes. [shows doc] A further version of the terms. [Signed by Ramona and Matthews] Intended to supersede?
W: I'm not sure.
C: Let's see if we can refresh your memory. Some notes, recognize?
W: Yes, still [not sure]
C: Clayton Utz. [quotes convertible loans should only be used for solicitors] It's been restricted in this version?
W: Yes, I still can't [missed]
C: The equity doesn't appear.
W: [not sure why]
C: By this stage, a bailout deal had been done.
W: No, it was to lock the IP to protect from ATO. I had other options, wasn't too worried. Didn't want to sell it to [missed]
C: At some point you claimed to be Satoshi?
W: Not at all.
C: So life story was not about being Satoshi?
W: No, I had many ideas, patents etc. That's a life story.
C: Are you saying the life story as far as Matthews and MacGregor were aware, was not about Satoshi?
W: I have no idea what MacGregor thought, ever.
C: At this time, to your knowledge, this Matthews know you were Satoshi?
W: He knew, I gave him the whitepaper.
C: Did MacGregor?
W: I have no idea.
C: So Matthews, who signed, knew the life story was about Satoshi?
W: No, about company growing etc
C: You're saying that Matthews knew life story was about you, and that you were Satoshi.
W: No, it was about intellectual property. You keep twisting words.
W: Not at all.
C: So life story was not about being Satoshi?
W: No, I had many ideas, patents etc. That's a life story.
C: Are you saying the life story as far as Matthews and MacGregor were aware, was not about Satoshi?
W: I have no idea what MacGregor thought, ever.
C: At this time, to your knowledge, this Matthews know you were Satoshi?
W: He knew, I gave him the whitepaper.
C: Did MacGregor?
W: I have no idea.
C: So Matthews, who signed, knew the life story was about Satoshi?
W: No, about company growing etc
C: You're saying that Matthews knew life story was about you, and that you were Satoshi.
W: No, it was about intellectual property. You keep twisting words.
C: So even though Stefan was a signatory, the life story was not going to include you being Satoshi.
W: I have no idea what it was going to include.
C: A multi-million dollar deal, and you didn't know?
W: Again, I entered into a [smaller deal?] without restrictions. I could go out and invent. I sit in an office and invent things all day.
C: How many patents had been granted by this stage?
W: That's why we needed help. I had 1300 documents ready to be turned into patents. 5-6 patents per document.
C: Stop there, I think you answered the question.
W: I have no idea what it was going to include.
C: A multi-million dollar deal, and you didn't know?
W: Again, I entered into a [smaller deal?] without restrictions. I could go out and invent. I sit in an office and invent things all day.
C: How many patents had been granted by this stage?
W: That's why we needed help. I had 1300 documents ready to be turned into patents. 5-6 patents per document.
C: Stop there, I think you answered the question.
C: After the deal, Clayton Utz terminated their retainer.
W: Yes, people sent false documents.
C: Mr. Summer was associated with Clayton Utz. He wrote email to your wife explaining why they had to terminate the retainer. He had submitted emails at your instruction.
W: No, they came from third parties. Their claims were false.
C: The purpose of the email is that they submitted documents and your behalf, and ATO say they're not genuine.
W: We had them analyzed and they came from an ATO server.
W: Yes, people sent false documents.
C: Mr. Summer was associated with Clayton Utz. He wrote email to your wife explaining why they had to terminate the retainer. He had submitted emails at your instruction.
W: No, they came from third parties. Their claims were false.
C: The purpose of the email is that they submitted documents and your behalf, and ATO say they're not genuine.
W: We had them analyzed and they came from an ATO server.
C: [shows letter from Summer] Raises series questions about integrity of docs. [quotes] That's what he wrote.
W: He later phoned and explained …
C: He signed it, didn't he.
W: Yes.
W: He was put under pressure. Utz was also dealing with ATO. All this turned out to be false.
C: So when he signed, he did not believe the words he was writing?
W: Yes, he spoke to my wife and me, and explained he was under pressure.
C: He told your wife he didn't believe the words?
W: Yes.
C: Any evidence from him to corroborate?
W: Yes, under privilege. I have forensic docs analyzing the emails, came from a server inside ATO.
C: We have docs in Wright 11, but your solicitors regarded the questions as credible.
W: Not all of them, no.
C: When you say this partner at Utz wrote docs which were dishonest, that's just wrong, isn't it.
W: I didn't say dishonest.
C: If he didn't believe it, that's dishonest.
W: No [partners don't like me etc]
W: He later phoned and explained …
C: He signed it, didn't he.
W: Yes.
W: He was put under pressure. Utz was also dealing with ATO. All this turned out to be false.
C: So when he signed, he did not believe the words he was writing?
W: Yes, he spoke to my wife and me, and explained he was under pressure.
C: He told your wife he didn't believe the words?
W: Yes.
C: Any evidence from him to corroborate?
W: Yes, under privilege. I have forensic docs analyzing the emails, came from a server inside ATO.
C: We have docs in Wright 11, but your solicitors regarded the questions as credible.
W: Not all of them, no.
C: When you say this partner at Utz wrote docs which were dishonest, that's just wrong, isn't it.
W: I didn't say dishonest.
C: If he didn't believe it, that's dishonest.
W: No [partners don't like me etc]
C: [quotes doc] He said that, didn't he?
W: He wrote it.
C: Did you inform him about urgency?
W: Yes, of course.
C: [shows email] Is this a genuine email from you?
W: Don't know, I don't control [domain]
C: [quotes about book] Did you write an email with this content?
W: I don't recall.
C: Does it look like your style?
W: Not really, no.
C: [quotes "I begged him to invest in some ideas I had", buying bitcoin] Do you think you wrote that?
W: No, doesn't look like mine. I think it's [missed]
W: He wrote it.
C: Did you inform him about urgency?
W: Yes, of course.
C: [shows email] Is this a genuine email from you?
W: Don't know, I don't control [domain]
C: [quotes about book] Did you write an email with this content?
W: I don't recall.
C: Does it look like your style?
W: Not really, no.
C: [quotes "I begged him to invest in some ideas I had", buying bitcoin] Do you think you wrote that?
W: No, doesn't look like mine. I think it's [missed]
C: [shows email] It appears to be a positive response from Matthews.
W: I had no involvement with [someone] at that point.
C: So you think it's not genuine?
W: I don't remember, I think it's not.
C: [shows email] Do you recall this as an email you received?
W: I don't.
C: It's in your list of documents from your first witness statement suggesting you reviewed it. Do you remember?
W: Not at the top of my head, no.
W: I had no involvement with [someone] at that point.
C: So you think it's not genuine?
W: I don't remember, I think it's not.
C: [shows email] Do you recall this as an email you received?
W: I don't.
C: It's in your list of documents from your first witness statement suggesting you reviewed it. Do you remember?
W: Not at the top of my head, no.
C: [quotes MacGregor about manuscripts, global interest for biography] Do you remember having these discussions?
W: No, I was traveling to the UK a that point.
C: A series of questions about Satoshi and the Bitcoin product. If this is genuine, in October 2015 he was asking for details about Satoshi with a view to dealing with literary agents.
W: No, just typing "Craig Wright" doesn't make it Craig Wright.
C: [quotes proof package about Satoshi identity/pedigree] Do you recall?
W: No, that came about after December.
C: [shows list of docs shown Wright for first witness statement] It's Item 7. Do you accept you saw it?
W: Yes, and I didn't recognize it then, either.
C: If I had seen an email that looked fake and conflicted with my story when preparing a witness statement, I would make jolly sure to make that clear. Wouldn't you?
W: No, I wouldn't, actually. I'm not going to point out every fake document, I've pointed out several times [missed]
W: No, I was traveling to the UK a that point.
C: A series of questions about Satoshi and the Bitcoin product. If this is genuine, in October 2015 he was asking for details about Satoshi with a view to dealing with literary agents.
W: No, just typing "Craig Wright" doesn't make it Craig Wright.
C: [quotes proof package about Satoshi identity/pedigree] Do you recall?
W: No, that came about after December.
C: [shows list of docs shown Wright for first witness statement] It's Item 7. Do you accept you saw it?
W: Yes, and I didn't recognize it then, either.
C: If I had seen an email that looked fake and conflicted with my story when preparing a witness statement, I would make jolly sure to make that clear. Wouldn't you?
W: No, I wouldn't, actually. I'm not going to point out every fake document, I've pointed out several times [missed]
C: [shows email] Says you've been captivated by Tim May etc. Do you recognize it?
W: Can't say [missed] That's wrong.
C: [email from Matthews to Wright et al] Do you recognize it, or is this also false?
W: No, I recognize it, but this Craig is another Craig, I don't own that domain.
C: It says it's from MacGregor to you.
W: In the email, I believe that's Tush [sp]
C: Do you say the content [missed]
W: I have no idea.
C: MacGregor proposes creation of proof package. Was that discussed by that stage, 2015?
W: God no, wouldn't give my keys to anyone.
C: But was it discussed?
W: Don't know, I have no idea.
W: Can't say [missed] That's wrong.
C: [email from Matthews to Wright et al] Do you recognize it, or is this also false?
W: No, I recognize it, but this Craig is another Craig, I don't own that domain.
C: It says it's from MacGregor to you.
W: In the email, I believe that's Tush [sp]
C: Do you say the content [missed]
W: I have no idea.
C: MacGregor proposes creation of proof package. Was that discussed by that stage, 2015?
W: God no, wouldn't give my keys to anyone.
C: But was it discussed?
W: Don't know, I have no idea.
C: [shows email from Wright to MacGregor et al]
W: I didn't write it.
C: So all the [quotes], it's fake content?
W: I have no idea what it is.
C: Are you aware who created these non-genuine documents?
W: Probably someone at Tush? It uses the Tush domain. Someone at Tush or who has compromised Tush.
C: If any of these are genuine, you were discussing all these matters concerning Satoshi before Gizmodo.
W: No, that's like saying if I had justice Mellor at GMail, I was you, My Lord.
C: It was after Gizmodo and Wired?
W: It was not.
C: These emails were flat against that, weren't they.
W: Not really, they were Tush, I have no idea…
C: It was disclosed from material in your possession. Nothing was said about them being fake.
W: The disclose was from staff laptops, 200 people, included everything Kleiman sent, everything Maxwell send to the ATO. I'm not owning any of it just because it's in a pile of something I've been a corporate executive of. I had to give over everything. Nobody ever asked me to pick out documents I don't agree with.
W: I didn't write it.
C: So all the [quotes], it's fake content?
W: I have no idea what it is.
C: Are you aware who created these non-genuine documents?
W: Probably someone at Tush? It uses the Tush domain. Someone at Tush or who has compromised Tush.
C: If any of these are genuine, you were discussing all these matters concerning Satoshi before Gizmodo.
W: No, that's like saying if I had justice Mellor at GMail, I was you, My Lord.
C: It was after Gizmodo and Wired?
W: It was not.
C: These emails were flat against that, weren't they.
W: Not really, they were Tush, I have no idea…
C: It was disclosed from material in your possession. Nothing was said about them being fake.
W: The disclose was from staff laptops, 200 people, included everything Kleiman sent, everything Maxwell send to the ATO. I'm not owning any of it just because it's in a pile of something I've been a corporate executive of. I had to give over everything. Nobody ever asked me to pick out documents I don't agree with.
C: If anyone else said they were having discussions with you about a book in 2015, you would say they're flat wrong, wouldn't you?
W: I would say the only discussions I had was about the company.
C: [shows reply in Hodlonaut] [quotes quickly, had no desire to be revealed as Satoshi, but after Gizmodo/Wired, reluctantly agreed] If anyone recalls discussions about your life story, including Satoshi, they must be wrong?
W: It was about [my companies]. That scaling [etc] would be about bitcoin.
C: Discussions about a book with your life story about Satoshi, would you say that?
W: No, Tush is not me.
C: In 2015, were the discussions about the life story including Satoshi or not?
W: *What* discussions? I had discussions in 2016 about documenting the company. Not about life story, but the company. In October I was here in England.
W: I would say the only discussions I had was about the company.
C: [shows reply in Hodlonaut] [quotes quickly, had no desire to be revealed as Satoshi, but after Gizmodo/Wired, reluctantly agreed] If anyone recalls discussions about your life story, including Satoshi, they must be wrong?
W: It was about [my companies]. That scaling [etc] would be about bitcoin.
C: Discussions about a book with your life story about Satoshi, would you say that?
W: No, Tush is not me.
C: In 2015, were the discussions about the life story including Satoshi or not?
W: *What* discussions? I had discussions in 2016 about documenting the company. Not about life story, but the company. In October I was here in England.
C: [shows Matthews statement] Made preparations to move to London.
W: I made trips in October, wife in November.
C: [quotes Matthews helping Wright be comfortable about the book.] [shows email]
W: Again, that's Tush. I was comfortable with documenting the company, my IP, patents.
C: Matthews remembers the email about your life story and bitcoin.
W: No, it's [Tush email], MacGregor's company. He sent email to Stefan and Calvin to make it look like I wanted to. Not even well, because it's the wrong domain.
C: So MacGregor sent it to Matthews?
W: Tush .co .uk is MacGregor's.
W: If he received the email, he probably thought it was true. He didn't discuss it with me.
W: That only happened in 2016. We discussed documenting the company. The company. Very emphatically the company.
W: I made trips in October, wife in November.
C: [quotes Matthews helping Wright be comfortable about the book.] [shows email]
W: Again, that's Tush. I was comfortable with documenting the company, my IP, patents.
C: Matthews remembers the email about your life story and bitcoin.
W: No, it's [Tush email], MacGregor's company. He sent email to Stefan and Calvin to make it look like I wanted to. Not even well, because it's the wrong domain.
C: So MacGregor sent it to Matthews?
W: Tush .co .uk is MacGregor's.
W: If he received the email, he probably thought it was true. He didn't discuss it with me.
W: That only happened in 2016. We discussed documenting the company. The company. Very emphatically the company.
C: [shows witness statement, saying Rob had accessed email] That's inconsistent with saying never had [a Tush email]
W: No, it was a forwarding email. It's true this was manipulated and accessed.
C: You said you couldn't possibly have a Tush email, now you're saying it was yours.
W: No, difference between box and forward. As an example, My Lord [craigsplaining email to Judge]
W: No, it was a forwarding email. It's true this was manipulated and accessed.
C: You said you couldn't possibly have a Tush email, now you're saying it was yours.
W: No, difference between box and forward. As an example, My Lord [craigsplaining email to Judge]
C: In late November 2015, reporters began making inquires.
W: I don't know when they started. First Wired.
C: The articles came out December 2015. [shows email from Wright to Matthews and MacGregor.
W: I noted they have private tax documents etc.
C: So they had obtained stolen material?
W: All of it was stolen.
C: And you were saying it's a government leak. Was the government responsible for parts of all of it?
W: Only parts of it. [someone] should have no rights to receive it in the first place.
C: Thieves got access to your material and leaked it to out you as Satoshi?
W: I don't know what they wanted.
W: Maxwell, one of your clients, is actually part of it.
W: I don't know when they started. First Wired.
C: The articles came out December 2015. [shows email from Wright to Matthews and MacGregor.
W: I noted they have private tax documents etc.
C: So they had obtained stolen material?
W: All of it was stolen.
C: And you were saying it's a government leak. Was the government responsible for parts of all of it?
W: Only parts of it. [someone] should have no rights to receive it in the first place.
C: Thieves got access to your material and leaked it to out you as Satoshi?
W: I don't know what they wanted.
W: Maxwell, one of your clients, is actually part of it.
C: Do you have any basis for believing leaks came from government?
W: Yes, Gizmodo […] unauthorized transfers, encrypted. The versions that were released were ATO versions. Someone had the encrypted ATO version, decrypted it and sent it to the government. Each has a marker. The leaked copy was the ATO internal one.
C: [shows Gizmodo/Wired article] [shows disclosure review doc] Irretrievable docs on your behalf. In email accounts disclosed by you, we see [Tush]? Were solicitors wrong to nominate it?
W: No, it's listed as irretrievable since I don't have control over it.
C: The rest of the email addresses you either have or had access to.
W: No, staff member.
C: Are any of the others fake and used to produce fake docs?
W: It's not a fake email address, but I don't control.
W: Yes, Gizmodo […] unauthorized transfers, encrypted. The versions that were released were ATO versions. Someone had the encrypted ATO version, decrypted it and sent it to the government. Each has a marker. The leaked copy was the ATO internal one.
C: [shows Gizmodo/Wired article] [shows disclosure review doc] Irretrievable docs on your behalf. In email accounts disclosed by you, we see [Tush]? Were solicitors wrong to nominate it?
W: No, it's listed as irretrievable since I don't have control over it.
C: The rest of the email addresses you either have or had access to.
W: No, staff member.
C: Are any of the others fake and used to produce fake docs?
W: It's not a fake email address, but I don't control.
C: If your solicitors' position was that you lost access, you must have had it at some point.
W: No, I never had access.
C: In mid-November, an anonymous source had started leaking docs?
W: Unfortunately yes.
C: Some docs concerned with Tulip Trust. They sent an encrypted email to you to show they knew your secret. [quotes quickly] Quotation is that it's a throw-away account, Tor. You say even that email came from you?
W: I'm not […], no. I wouldn't use that name.
C: It says this is an elaborate hoax orchestrated by you.
W: No, Greg Maxwell contacted Wired and put together false information…
C: Stop you on all these allegations. It does say that.
W: No, it was changed.
C: One leaked doc was Tulip Trust. Two emails linked to Satoshi, later debunked.
W: Actually weren't debunked. Maxwell came out and said they were fake because of the key structure, not part of PGP. I debunked his debunking. I showed the particular algorithm was available 2 years prior to what he said. He had started fabricated docs two days prior to the Wired article.
W: No, I never had access.
C: In mid-November, an anonymous source had started leaking docs?
W: Unfortunately yes.
C: Some docs concerned with Tulip Trust. They sent an encrypted email to you to show they knew your secret. [quotes quickly] Quotation is that it's a throw-away account, Tor. You say even that email came from you?
W: I'm not […], no. I wouldn't use that name.
C: It says this is an elaborate hoax orchestrated by you.
W: No, Greg Maxwell contacted Wired and put together false information…
C: Stop you on all these allegations. It does say that.
W: No, it was changed.
C: One leaked doc was Tulip Trust. Two emails linked to Satoshi, later debunked.
W: Actually weren't debunked. Maxwell came out and said they were fake because of the key structure, not part of PGP. I debunked his debunking. I showed the particular algorithm was available 2 years prior to what he said. He had started fabricated docs two days prior to the Wired article.
C: You went to great effort to write articles to […]
W: I demonstrated it was wrong. He was slandering me.
C: You're now saying all the docs Wired/Gizmodo had were fake.
W: It was tainted evidence [but real]
C: You went to extraordinary effort to rebut Maxwell's claims of keys you now say aren't yours.
W: You throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks. 3 fabricated, 2 real, now you can say they're all fabricated. Don't look at the real one.
C: We obviously don't accept you had PGP keys associated with Satoshi. But you traveled to London. You moved to London shortly after these articles.
W: No, I got my residency.
C: You physically moved.
W: I moved before. I went in October, came back to do the transition. We already found a house, were transitioning back and forth.
W: I demonstrated it was wrong. He was slandering me.
C: You're now saying all the docs Wired/Gizmodo had were fake.
W: It was tainted evidence [but real]
C: You went to extraordinary effort to rebut Maxwell's claims of keys you now say aren't yours.
W: You throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks. 3 fabricated, 2 real, now you can say they're all fabricated. Don't look at the real one.
C: We obviously don't accept you had PGP keys associated with Satoshi. But you traveled to London. You moved to London shortly after these articles.
W: No, I got my residency.
C: You physically moved.
W: I moved before. I went in October, came back to do the transition. We already found a house, were transitioning back and forth.
C: Early 2016. [shows "implementation deed"] Do you remember?
W: I don't remember who [something]
C: Focus on the doc. On its face, it provides the term sheet. Do you remember signing?
W: Not the way you describe it. It was changed quite a lot after Wired/Gizmodo.
C: And what does [Stefan?] have to do with this document?
W: MacGregor was behind the wheel.
C: So it's not a real agreement?
C: Did you enter into this agreement?
W: Yes.
W: I don't remember who [something]
C: Focus on the doc. On its face, it provides the term sheet. Do you remember signing?
W: Not the way you describe it. It was changed quite a lot after Wired/Gizmodo.
C: And what does [Stefan?] have to do with this document?
W: MacGregor was behind the wheel.
C: So it's not a real agreement?
C: Did you enter into this agreement?
W: Yes.
C: [quotes term sheet] You agreed with these terms.
W: I didn't have much choice, but yes.
C: Life story rights. Is this genuine? [Yes] Is that your and Matthews' signature?
W: I authorized it.
C: Is it your signature?
W: I agreed to be bound.
C: Is it your signature?
W: I have people sign for me.
C: It says your name.
W: I sent a message that it was OK.
C: It didn't trouble you that someone signed your name?
W: No, I said it was OK.
5-minute break. "This is bad", someone whispered.
W: I didn't have much choice, but yes.
C: Life story rights. Is this genuine? [Yes] Is that your and Matthews' signature?
W: I authorized it.
C: Is it your signature?
W: I agreed to be bound.
C: Is it your signature?
W: I have people sign for me.
C: It says your name.
W: I sent a message that it was OK.
C: It didn't trouble you that someone signed your name?
W: No, I said it was OK.
5-minute break. "This is bad", someone whispered.
Back.
C: [shows termsheet] Definition of life story. Satoshi story. You were to receive a million AUD with 250k already paid.
W: The already paid was about the move to UK. It was in kind. It was accounted that way.
C: [quotes public announcement date] It was planned it would take place by December 2016.
W: No, it was about payment. I was not in a rush to get the money.
C: [quotes] making yourself available for interviews and marketing works etc. In signing up, you were committing to a major media exercise involving coming out as Satoshi.
W: Yes and no. Robert used it as leverage. The rest of the money, ongoing operation from Australia. "Everything's now here, your companies are tied up, you're going to do this." "You'll be shipped back if you don't do what I want."
C: So you were under pressure.
W: More than just pressure. The IP had been transferred, I'd never get to work on it.
C: [shows termsheet] Definition of life story. Satoshi story. You were to receive a million AUD with 250k already paid.
W: The already paid was about the move to UK. It was in kind. It was accounted that way.
C: [quotes public announcement date] It was planned it would take place by December 2016.
W: No, it was about payment. I was not in a rush to get the money.
C: [quotes] making yourself available for interviews and marketing works etc. In signing up, you were committing to a major media exercise involving coming out as Satoshi.
W: Yes and no. Robert used it as leverage. The rest of the money, ongoing operation from Australia. "Everything's now here, your companies are tied up, you're going to do this." "You'll be shipped back if you don't do what I want."
C: So you were under pressure.
W: More than just pressure. The IP had been transferred, I'd never get to work on it.
C: Matthews signed the agreement as a director of EITC. Did he know you were under duress?
W: He knew I was unhappy.
C: He knew you didn't want to?
W: Pretty much, yes.
C: In March 2016, shortly after agreement, ATO issued a series of rejections about Co1n [etc] They disallowed claims totaling [$].
W: No, these are rebates, against future tax. Everything over $20M cannot have a refund. Over the next years, if I sold Bitcoin of IP, I could take it off taxable income.
C: They disallowed [missed]
W: I did it every year since […] Every time I won, except this time when I gave up. [lists years he won]
C: These claims which were rejected in 2016, where you spent so much money, you just gave them up.
W: I didn't have much choice. Rob pulled all the money and stopped funding. I had to fund what I could personally. The funding in the agreement didn't occur.
W: He knew I was unhappy.
C: He knew you didn't want to?
W: Pretty much, yes.
C: In March 2016, shortly after agreement, ATO issued a series of rejections about Co1n [etc] They disallowed claims totaling [$].
W: No, these are rebates, against future tax. Everything over $20M cannot have a refund. Over the next years, if I sold Bitcoin of IP, I could take it off taxable income.
C: They disallowed [missed]
W: I did it every year since […] Every time I won, except this time when I gave up. [lists years he won]
C: These claims which were rejected in 2016, where you spent so much money, you just gave them up.
W: I didn't have much choice. Rob pulled all the money and stopped funding. I had to fund what I could personally. The funding in the agreement didn't occur.
C: You were in discussions about providing proof you were Satoshi.
W: Not like you're saying. I kept saying we need to prove in terms of knowledge et cetera. I need to file papers, to demonstrate my work. Rob had a deal with Silicon Valley to sell the product. Not that I prove myself in any other way than anonymously. I had to go against all my beliefs, but use my key and be anonymous. That's the only way a billion dollars would come in.
W: Not like you're saying. I kept saying we need to prove in terms of knowledge et cetera. I need to file papers, to demonstrate my work. Rob had a deal with Silicon Valley to sell the product. Not that I prove myself in any other way than anonymously. I had to go against all my beliefs, but use my key and be anonymous. That's the only way a billion dollars would come in.
C: [shows email from Wright to Matthews] You were setting out conditions for proof session.
W: I said I would do things in private.
C: You were agreeing to conduct signings with keys associated with Satoshi behind closed doors.
W: Not the way you said it. I would sign as in British law. Just like I wrote about digital signatures, you can't prove identity by possession.
C: You can prove possession.
W: Yes, Dread Pirate Roberts etc…
C: Pause there. Proof session with Matonis.
W: And as I said, no public display. This was supposed to be private and unknown
C: Shortly after the agreement you had a signing session with Matonis.
W: Because I knew who he was.
C: There was an attempt to get either Andresen or Hearn in another signing session. [shows email from Matthews to Matonis setting it up] Was it known to you?
W: I didn't know it [missed]
W: I said I would do things in private.
C: You were agreeing to conduct signings with keys associated with Satoshi behind closed doors.
W: Not the way you said it. I would sign as in British law. Just like I wrote about digital signatures, you can't prove identity by possession.
C: You can prove possession.
W: Yes, Dread Pirate Roberts etc…
C: Pause there. Proof session with Matonis.
W: And as I said, no public display. This was supposed to be private and unknown
C: Shortly after the agreement you had a signing session with Matonis.
W: Because I knew who he was.
C: There was an attempt to get either Andresen or Hearn in another signing session. [shows email from Matthews to Matonis setting it up] Was it known to you?
W: I didn't know it [missed]
C: You were working with a journalist, O'Hagan, to produce a long article or book.
W: I started documenting what I was inventing.
C: [shows email] [quotes O'Hagan] He was referring to the Satoshi email?
W: I guess so, I wasn't sure about the details.
C: He goes on to complain about the lack of Satoshi email correspondence.
W: He mentioned it, yes.
C: [quotes O'Hagan complaining about no access to objective proof] He was pressing for proof?
W: I wasn't sure. He didn't ask me, might have been talking to Rob. I didn't know O'Hagan was involved into February 2016. I found Rob had talked to him at least 6 months before.
W: I started documenting what I was inventing.
C: [shows email] [quotes O'Hagan] He was referring to the Satoshi email?
W: I guess so, I wasn't sure about the details.
C: He goes on to complain about the lack of Satoshi email correspondence.
W: He mentioned it, yes.
C: [quotes O'Hagan complaining about no access to objective proof] He was pressing for proof?
W: I wasn't sure. He didn't ask me, might have been talking to Rob. I didn't know O'Hagan was involved into February 2016. I found Rob had talked to him at least 6 months before.
C: O'Hagan had asked for objective proof and hadn't had any.
W: I wasn't involved in any of that.
C: If you had had access to Satoshi emails, that would have been the time to use them.
W: I didn't give a rat's ass.
W: I had been forced in duress. I selected Rob over [name] because of a promise I would get to be Chief Scientist and work on my inventions and have a team, and teach me how to turn inventions into patents.
C: You were the one who signed an agreement to give full support of a media reveal.
W: I agreed to do it my way. I went to Gavin and told him about development issues, things that were not public. I had phone calls with him, things only he and Satoshi knew. That's why he came to England, it had nothing to with this…
W: I wasn't involved in any of that.
C: If you had had access to Satoshi emails, that would have been the time to use them.
W: I didn't give a rat's ass.
W: I had been forced in duress. I selected Rob over [name] because of a promise I would get to be Chief Scientist and work on my inventions and have a team, and teach me how to turn inventions into patents.
C: You were the one who signed an agreement to give full support of a media reveal.
W: I agreed to do it my way. I went to Gavin and told him about development issues, things that were not public. I had phone calls with him, things only he and Satoshi knew. That's why he came to England, it had nothing to with this…
C: [shows email from Andresen to Matthews forwarded to Wright] Recall?
W: No. When was it?
C: 21 March. Do you recall?
W: I don't.
C: We'll see what your [?] was writing. Andresen required a number of pieces of evidence. Message signed with Satoshi's PGP key or early blocks. Said he wanted to do it on his computer to avoid modified software. Said private emails would help.
W: I had those. I went over the technology, and things people didn't know, like SPV patches etc.
C: His PGP key reference belonged to Satoshi?
W: Only for encrypting, not for signing. You shouldn't use it for both.
C: It would have been a bad idea?
W: You could have [missed]. That would have been a bad idea. So no, there is no key to sign with.
W: No. When was it?
C: 21 March. Do you recall?
W: I don't.
C: We'll see what your [?] was writing. Andresen required a number of pieces of evidence. Message signed with Satoshi's PGP key or early blocks. Said he wanted to do it on his computer to avoid modified software. Said private emails would help.
W: I had those. I went over the technology, and things people didn't know, like SPV patches etc.
C: His PGP key reference belonged to Satoshi?
W: Only for encrypting, not for signing. You shouldn't use it for both.
C: It would have been a bad idea?
W: You could have [missed]. That would have been a bad idea. So no, there is no key to sign with.
C: Your response is that the only thing that might help would be a conversation. You were resistant to all other forms of proof?
W: Exactly. You prove by knowledge and what you create.
C: You rejected any objective proof.
W: A certain Harry Potter author did it recently
W: Your trying to equate something opposite of British law, going back to Roman times. Silicon Valley rejects [blabla]
C: Please stop, digression. You would only have a technical discussion you knew you could fake.
W: Actually no, it's the one thing you can't fake. If you compromise the emails you would have to understand them as well. Most people don't know what Gavin and I talked about. We talked about SPV. Gavin did the first one, I did some patches. It was unknown.
W: Exactly. You prove by knowledge and what you create.
C: You rejected any objective proof.
W: A certain Harry Potter author did it recently
W: Your trying to equate something opposite of British law, going back to Roman times. Silicon Valley rejects [blabla]
C: Please stop, digression. You would only have a technical discussion you knew you could fake.
W: Actually no, it's the one thing you can't fake. If you compromise the emails you would have to understand them as well. Most people don't know what Gavin and I talked about. We talked about SPV. Gavin did the first one, I did some patches. It was unknown.
C: MacGregor replied [quotes] Tries to get you to engage in some sort of signing process like Gavin wanted.
W: He wanted some sort of key structure…
C: Hold there [missed]
W: No, he kept moving the goal post. I signed for multiple people, it wasn't good enough. He made it so the only way to do it was to make BTC cypherpunks happy.
C: You object to signing because it would prove you control the keys.
W: It's *only* proof I control the keys, not identity.
C: [quotes] Keys can be compromised, not principal [missed]
W: I can give you a signed message and you can validate it. But I can no longer control who has the message. [Craig looks at the judge as he speaks] If I can send you back the file, I must have decrypted it. Gavin can know and he's not telling anyone.
W: He wanted some sort of key structure…
C: Hold there [missed]
W: No, he kept moving the goal post. I signed for multiple people, it wasn't good enough. He made it so the only way to do it was to make BTC cypherpunks happy.
C: You object to signing because it would prove you control the keys.
W: It's *only* proof I control the keys, not identity.
C: [quotes] Keys can be compromised, not principal [missed]
W: I can give you a signed message and you can validate it. But I can no longer control who has the message. [Craig looks at the judge as he speaks] If I can send you back the file, I must have decrypted it. Gavin can know and he's not telling anyone.
C: [something about government] That's the nature of your objection.
W: I wasn't going to just have it out there. No way I was going to basically have this mantra that everything wants of possession equaling identity.
C: Then journalists from GQ etc.
W: The goal post moved.
C: You undertook signing sessions.
W: No, I showed keys. Proof packs were meant to put together inventions, patents…
C: Did you or did you not have signing sessions with journalists?
W: I used the digital signature algorithm with the key. My identity, I did not sign. A signature requires and identity. I didn't make a signature, I used the algorithm with the original keys.
W: I wasn't going to just have it out there. No way I was going to basically have this mantra that everything wants of possession equaling identity.
C: Then journalists from GQ etc.
W: The goal post moved.
C: You undertook signing sessions.
W: No, I showed keys. Proof packs were meant to put together inventions, patents…
C: Did you or did you not have signing sessions with journalists?
W: I used the digital signature algorithm with the key. My identity, I did not sign. A signature requires and identity. I didn't make a signature, I used the algorithm with the original keys.
C: [shows email] MacGregor suggests signing sessions should have PGP signing etc. [quotes Wright saying "my view is we sign the early blocks, not move blocks"]
W: It's not signing. I would show I can verify early blocks. I agreed to do that. Verify all my stuff, how I created the Bitcoin wp…
C: You suggested signing session.
W: Verify early blocks doesn't mean doing signature.
C: It was a signature session.
W: That's not a signature. I would use the keys, I have not said that makes it a signature. Law requires identity first. Then, and ONLY then, can I say that's my signing key.
W: It's not signing. I would show I can verify early blocks. I agreed to do that. Verify all my stuff, how I created the Bitcoin wp…
C: You suggested signing session.
W: Verify early blocks doesn't mean doing signature.
C: It was a signature session.
W: That's not a signature. I would use the keys, I have not said that makes it a signature. Law requires identity first. Then, and ONLY then, can I say that's my signing key.
C: [shows email from MacGregor to Wright, Ramona, Matthews] He refers to media partners given docs. He hopes trustee permission will be in place. Partners will be asked to send 1 bitcoin to the genesis block and block 9. You respond saying you were not moving bitcoin, just message signing.
W: Proof pack etc. All of that was meant to happen, didn't.
C: You were supposed to use keys associated with early blocks.
W: No, I wasn't going to move coin.
C: Signing, not moving.
W: You have to have a key associated with identity first. It's in the white paper.
W: Proof pack etc. All of that was meant to happen, didn't.
C: You were supposed to use keys associated with early blocks.
W: No, I wasn't going to move coin.
C: Signing, not moving.
W: You have to have a key associated with identity first. It's in the white paper.
C: [shows email/agenda from MacGregor to Wright] Dry run of proof sessions. The plan was for messages to be signed on your blog.
W: No, Rob was continuously moving the goal posts…
W: The proof package never happened.
C: April 2, your blog to go live and media pieces to be released. You respond "everything is in place from my end".
W: I don't recall.
C: You didn't respond saying you absolutely will not sign a message.
W: I don't recall.
C: You were going along with the plan.
W: No, I was actually very difficult. They gave me scripted things to say.
W: No, Rob was continuously moving the goal posts…
W: The proof package never happened.
C: April 2, your blog to go live and media pieces to be released. You respond "everything is in place from my end".
W: I don't recall.
C: You didn't respond saying you absolutely will not sign a message.
W: I don't recall.
C: You were going along with the plan.
W: No, I was actually very difficult. They gave me scripted things to say.
C: We'll have an example of that. [plays recording of GQ interview] Pause there. GQ had an academic cryptographer with them.
W: No, he's basically a fraud, claims he can break keys when he has never done so.
C: You're objecting to the idea that cryptographic keys could be compromised.
W: He said categorically they had captured hundreds of keys [agitated]
C: You were taking the opposite position.
W: More than that. If you had a signature, requiring identity, someone cannot just steal your private information because you have an open public key. He said they had harvested hundreds of them.
W: No, he's basically a fraud, claims he can break keys when he has never done so.
C: You're objecting to the idea that cryptographic keys could be compromised.
W: He said categorically they had captured hundreds of keys [agitated]
C: You were taking the opposite position.
W: More than that. If you had a signature, requiring identity, someone cannot just steal your private information because you have an open public key. He said they had harvested hundreds of them.
C: [recording continues. Feck off. Show me now or fecking walk.] I'm not going to ask about the language you used. You said you had only transferred to Finney and Zooko.
W: No. What most people call Satoshi's Bitcoins were owned by [his companies].
C: Satoshi, as well as transferring to Finney, transferred to others as well.
W: Technically it was from my companies. Not from me.
C: You said you had transferred only to Zooko and Finney. In reality, Satoshi never transferred to Zooko.
W: Actually I did. He had worked on MojoNation…
C: So he's wrong when he says he never received from Satoshi?
W: Yes.
C: And other people?
W: I don't remember, [it was 2009].
W: No. What most people call Satoshi's Bitcoins were owned by [his companies].
C: Satoshi, as well as transferring to Finney, transferred to others as well.
W: Technically it was from my companies. Not from me.
C: You said you had transferred only to Zooko and Finney. In reality, Satoshi never transferred to Zooko.
W: Actually I did. He had worked on MojoNation…
C: So he's wrong when he says he never received from Satoshi?
W: Yes.
C: And other people?
W: I don't remember, [it was 2009].
C: Your keys might have been obtained by others?
W: Not. At. All. My Lord, what that guy is saying is [wrong]. Sit there saying they can do these things. That's technobabble, you can verify nothing. So-called experts that can't verify their work, I hate it. I loathe that! [agitated] Go to conferences about it etc, it's *disgusting*!
C: You made your point. You said you transferred to hundreds of people, some not in public domain.
W: I don't remember all of them now.
Mellor: Not even [missed]?
W: Gavin has talked about that now. It had no value at the time, My Lord. Most were pseudonymous.
W: Not. At. All. My Lord, what that guy is saying is [wrong]. Sit there saying they can do these things. That's technobabble, you can verify nothing. So-called experts that can't verify their work, I hate it. I loathe that! [agitated] Go to conferences about it etc, it's *disgusting*!
C: You made your point. You said you transferred to hundreds of people, some not in public domain.
W: I don't remember all of them now.
Mellor: Not even [missed]?
W: Gavin has talked about that now. It had no value at the time, My Lord. Most were pseudonymous.
C: [shows email from PR agency] It refers to your blog going live on May 2 and signing block 9. Did you receive and read it?
W: I don't recall.
C: It was about you signing a new message for block 9.
W: I agreed to their being a proof pack first, they would look at the scaling solution I was building. Then and only then.
C: A blog would go live bearing a signature by you.
W: That's what they wanted. No proof pack…
C: Did you respond to any of these emails?
W: Eh, yes, there was a lot of yelling and screaming at people.
W: I don't recall.
C: It was about you signing a new message for block 9.
W: I agreed to their being a proof pack first, they would look at the scaling solution I was building. Then and only then.
C: A blog would go live bearing a signature by you.
W: That's what they wanted. No proof pack…
C: Did you respond to any of these emails?
W: Eh, yes, there was a lot of yelling and screaming at people.
C: [2016 email] Is this the draft blog you provided?
W: It looks similar.
C: You describe a process of signing and verifying a signature.
W: No, I use an existing one and demonstrate I know an incredible bit about using the command line. If you actually read Sartre's letter, I was saying "screw you all". You get a signature if I get my proof pack.
C: You show how to sign.
W: If you have identity.
C: So you're not signing with a real key to a new message, and the purpose is to say "screw you"?
W: If I sign "Craig Wright" it's not the same as saying "Craig Wright is Satoshi".
W: It looks similar.
C: You describe a process of signing and verifying a signature.
W: No, I use an existing one and demonstrate I know an incredible bit about using the command line. If you actually read Sartre's letter, I was saying "screw you all". You get a signature if I get my proof pack.
C: You show how to sign.
W: If you have identity.
C: So you're not signing with a real key to a new message, and the purpose is to say "screw you"?
W: If I sign "Craig Wright" it's not the same as saying "Craig Wright is Satoshi".
C: So you say this is clear from the blog that this is definitely not providing proof. This message screams out?
W: This blog is the first step of what I would start to reveal.
C: [quotes blog] You're comparing this with the signing sessions you've done for Andresen.
W: Of course, I demonstrate that I know how to do it, but I'm not going to do it that way, I'm going through a process…
C: [quotes] You didn't say that was a signature already on the blockchain. You didn't prove anything, did you?
W: I didn't need to. Anyone of the developers looking at it would see it very quickly, and the did. If they didn't, I'd be surprised.
W: This blog is the first step of what I would start to reveal.
C: [quotes blog] You're comparing this with the signing sessions you've done for Andresen.
W: Of course, I demonstrate that I know how to do it, but I'm not going to do it that way, I'm going through a process…
C: [quotes] You didn't say that was a signature already on the blockchain. You didn't prove anything, did you?
W: I didn't need to. Anyone of the developers looking at it would see it very quickly, and the did. If they didn't, I'd be surprised.
C: It took a little effort to find the signature.
W: No, the code was published in 2011. Maxwell. Wuille, they have extensively talked about it from 2011 to 16. Every one of them. At least 10 different occurrences, minimum, per one. Everyone knew it!
C: [quotes] You're contrasting signing in Electrum as in private sessions, and signing in OpenSSL.
W: No, I said I *could* have done a signature and loaded it. But you're not putting my proof pack up.
C: Let's be direct: if you had had access to private keys, you could have taken a message, produced a signature…
W: No, I could have produced a message digest if I had proved my identity.
C: Just about what's possible.
W: No, you won't get me to agree to that. You cannot! [Raises his voice]
C: If you wanted to prove possession, it would have been no technical problem about putting a message on your blog.
W: It would have been the biggest lie in human history! Signing up for a cypherpunk lie! Removing the function of identity as it is in the Bitcoin wp! Undermining my life's work!
W: No, the code was published in 2011. Maxwell. Wuille, they have extensively talked about it from 2011 to 16. Every one of them. At least 10 different occurrences, minimum, per one. Everyone knew it!
C: [quotes] You're contrasting signing in Electrum as in private sessions, and signing in OpenSSL.
W: No, I said I *could* have done a signature and loaded it. But you're not putting my proof pack up.
C: Let's be direct: if you had had access to private keys, you could have taken a message, produced a signature…
W: No, I could have produced a message digest if I had proved my identity.
C: Just about what's possible.
W: No, you won't get me to agree to that. You cannot! [Raises his voice]
C: If you wanted to prove possession, it would have been no technical problem about putting a message on your blog.
W: It would have been the biggest lie in human history! Signing up for a cypherpunk lie! Removing the function of identity as it is in the Bitcoin wp! Undermining my life's work!
Mellor: The lady in the back is nodding the whole time. Sit still.
C: Your team expected a signature.
W: Your biggest lie is I had a team. I had a deal to sell a package of me as a cypherpunk. But a little bow on me and sell me as a cypherpunk.
C: If you had produced a sign message, it would not involve a security risk of the private keys being derived.
W: Not if I had it on a separate machine.
C: If you had put a signed message out there, and you informed the world of which key you had signed with, which block, that would not have created a real risk of the private key being compromised.
W: Again, that has nothing to do with Bitcoin. The security risk…
C: Wright, that was an important question, are you prepared to answer it?
W: I am answering it. The security risk was undermining my life's work. The whole purpose of my invention is identity, it has to be there.
C: Your team expected a signature.
W: Your biggest lie is I had a team. I had a deal to sell a package of me as a cypherpunk. But a little bow on me and sell me as a cypherpunk.
C: If you had produced a sign message, it would not involve a security risk of the private keys being derived.
W: Not if I had it on a separate machine.
C: If you had put a signed message out there, and you informed the world of which key you had signed with, which block, that would not have created a real risk of the private key being compromised.
W: Again, that has nothing to do with Bitcoin. The security risk…
C: Wright, that was an important question, are you prepared to answer it?
W: I am answering it. The security risk was undermining my life's work. The whole purpose of my invention is identity, it has to be there.
C: Sartre blog post was published on May 2. [quotes]
W: Yes, but they've taken a few parts out.
C: The same signed message as a public Satoshi signature on the blockchain.
W: Yes, but [missed]
C: You're saying if it was published just as you drafted it, it would [be OK]
W: The argument would have been that I had stolen the keys. There was a big movement among "BTC Core" people, Ira Kleiman…
C: Each of these blogs failed that standard.
W: I never intended it. I promised that if you put together my 100s of papers, 1000s of patents, if you show the scaling work I've been doing, then I would have signed. I had to have my identity first.
W: Yes, but they've taken a few parts out.
C: The same signed message as a public Satoshi signature on the blockchain.
W: Yes, but [missed]
C: You're saying if it was published just as you drafted it, it would [be OK]
W: The argument would have been that I had stolen the keys. There was a big movement among "BTC Core" people, Ira Kleiman…
C: Each of these blogs failed that standard.
W: I never intended it. I promised that if you put together my 100s of papers, 1000s of patents, if you show the scaling work I've been doing, then I would have signed. I had to have my identity first.
C: [shows Kleiman transcript] Gavin says he expected signature. Instead he released "wacky" text, hard to follow, I was as surprised as everybody.
C: My Lord, it is getting late.
Mellor: OK, we'll call it a day. Dr Wright, relax, have a good evening and we'll see each other in the morning.
Thanks to all for reading!
C: My Lord, it is getting late.
Mellor: OK, we'll call it a day. Dr Wright, relax, have a good evening and we'll see each other in the morning.
Thanks to all for reading!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
