February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright "The Satoshi Trial" Master Thread.
Tuesday, DAY 7.
PLEASE RETWEET FOR MAX CIRCULATION
Tuesday, DAY 7.
PLEASE RETWEET FOR MAX CIRCULATION
Mellor: How will you proceed in relation to the submitted docs?
Hough: I need to speak with Gunning still. There are outstanding questions that need to be resolved.
Mellor: In the excel spreadsheets, there's a limit in size, and I can't see the whole white paper, for example.
Gunning: It links to an appendix. We do see editing history and anything that isn't redacted.
Mellor: [sounding like he may be unwell this morning] some of the redactions seem odd. Row 6, for example. Can you double check redactions [to CSW's team]
CSW team: We are looking at it. They are about claims to privilege from the folders where they were sourced. So far, they have been consistent with claims of privilege.
Hough: I'm told there's a column with truncation. I hadn't noticed personally.
Mellor: Wright may want to comment as well, so I won't rule that out.
Hough: We acknowledge he may need to be recalled.
EXAM CONTINUES
COPA: You insist bitcoin isn't a cryptocurrency despite Satoshi using the term. You challenged the Malmi email where it looks like they wrote the term.
CSW: There is no "they." Just me.
COPA: See the middle of this page. "Someone came up with the word cryptocurrency for bitcoin. Do you like it?" You accept this is real?
CSW: I do.
COPA: New email between Satoshi and Malmi. "P2P cryptocurrency sounds more interesting, yes?"
CSW: On top of that, there's SourceForge messages and open forum talks.
COPA: So Satoshi raised the idea of using the word.
CSW: No. It was raised by someone else.
COPA: Satoshi suggested it to Malmi
CSW: No, he was in the forums where it was first discussed.
COPA: And Satoshi instructed the change
CSW: You'll notice it was changed on the site (which was Malmi's job) before this discussion. I agreed at the time, and I have decided in time that the term was inaccurate.
[everyone sounds like they have sore throats today...]
COPA: Evidence from Granath proceedings. Gaining access to the keys
CSW: Access to the drive anyways...
COPA: You say you were unable to access the drive here.
CSW: Yes
COPA: You said you got key slices and advice from Baker MacKenzie
CSW: I see that
COPA: You stated you destroyed the hard drive with keys and key slices
CSW: It was an AES system collated. The key unlocks the drive. What is accessed is the algorithm that calculates the keys homomorphically.
COPA: You're clear here that they access the first 12 blocks, right?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Not the first 11 like you said yesterday?
CSW: MY first twelve
COPA: You said blocks 1-11 here and 12 in Granath. That's a difference.
CSW: I definitely had 1-11
COPA: You were wrong with Granath?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: In Kleiman trial, You were asked if you got access from Uyen. You said you had enough slices anyways.
CSW: Correct
COPA: You said the trust used shamir
CSW: The algorithm, not the entity.
COPA: You were asked what assets were controlled
CSW: In the current format, yes.
COPA: You were asked about the 2011.
CSW: That trust was settled and new members were added.
COPA: You were asked if Dave was involved in Tulip Trust. You said no
CSW: Correct
COPA: You said here he was holding slices of the trust.
CSW: that's the algorithm key slice.
COPA: Slices for creating a private key?
CSW: We have patents on this. Your expert explained a radically simpler system. We created a system that does this differently.
COPA: You were asked if you put bitcoin in the trust and said no. Did anyone? said no. Those were about Tulip Trust?
CSW: Some. People get confused by the trust and Tulip trust. The Tulip Trust owns companies that hold bitcoin in their holdings along with IP, software and other assets.
COPA: Your evidence now says that Tulip owns companies and companies own bitcoin?
CSW: Yes, and I don't own 100% of any of the companies or the Tulip Trust.
[He has been consistent on this point in every trial, and every attorney acts like he isn't]
COPA: Here you say you mined in 2009-2010 and put them into a trust based in Panama.
CSW: This was pre-Tulip Trust. Wright Intl had an agreement for the company to mine into Wright Intl Trust.
COPA: You said that in October 2012 Tulip Trust held bitcoin.
CSW: Not exactly. There were other structures. Tulip trading, by corpus...
COPA: So what you mean is not that the assets of the trust own bitcoin but that they own companies that own bitcoin.
CSW: Hence the language of "by corpus." I had to list every entity or beneficiary agreement where I owned interest.
COPA: But you didn't say you mined into a trust and consolidated into another trust?
CSW: I wasn't asked. A trust, by definition, if I'm not a trustee makes me not an owner. I also wasn't in charge of the companies.
COPA: Here's a list of companies that are trustees as well as PGP holders.
CSW: These docs came from machines from which I couldn't validate before the trust meeting in 2020, but I explained this.
COPA: This doc says Dave was a trustee.
CSW: I explained how this doc was altered. You acknowledged that the signature was an inserted image.
COPA: You explained that the original trustee was Dave. It was wrong when you said he was involved.
CSW: I have already explained. I didn't have access to anything when asked previously. Docs hadn't yet been analyzed. These came from employee laptops if you check the COC. They weren't real docs, but I didn't know they weren't real when we had to disclose them.
COPA: So which is it?! Are you saying you gave declaration not knowing or knowing from docs?
Mellor: So was Dave a trustee?
CSW: No
Mellor: Why was it said then?
CSW: The magistrate made me make a yes or no. I said I don't know if he was. I was told if I don't answer, I'd be in contempt. I told him I set it up so I wouldn't know, but I can't validate if the docs were real. I answered based on if this doc was real.
COPA: There's no such qualification here
CSW: I explained clearly, but had a similarly contentious conversation with Reinhart where nobody could understand the specifics. I threw this doc and was threatened for my behavior.
COPA: There's no evidence that that was this document.
CSW: I've been answering questions about being a blind beneficiary of a trust for many years.
COPA: So what you meant to say was you were pressured by the judge to say something.
CSW: By my solicitors..
COPA: PLEASE DONT SHARE PRIVILEGE INFO
Mellor: Here you nominate yourself as a trustee. How could you be a trustee without seeing the docs?
CSW: My signature isn't on this doc. This doc is fake. But created and on 2 staff laptops that also sent info to Ira. Savanna was a real company, and I know Uyen, but I couldn't go to anyone to see the real docs until 2020.
Mellor: So why did you nominate yourself as a trustee?
CSW: I listed what the doc said and the doc was bad.
Mellor: So why do it?
CSW: I told my US attorneys that I didn't know what to do with the conflicting docs. I know which one is real now, but I didn't know then.
Mellor: Who created all these?
CSW: Diane Pinter from Lloyds
Mellor: She drafted it. When?
CSW: I made the first draft in 2011, but then removed myself from the knowledge of further things. I gave input to Diane and people at Baker's to make the new trust deeds and in their restructyring in 2016, but I didn't get copies.
Mellor: Who was responsible for the new deeds in 2016?
CSW: My wife.
Mellor: Thank you
COPA: You see distribution of coins being mined and the bonded courier was meant to return key slices in 2020.
CSW: That's what was intended, yes.
COPA: So fragmented keys would come to you and allow you to generate keys.
CSW: Essentially, yes.
COPA: Is it right that access to this encrypted file would come from Dave or Bonded Courier?
CSW: It was meant to be that he gave it back or the courier did. But he died.
COPA: While being cross examined by Mr Freedman, he asks if the technical solution is based on the shamir scheme, so there's a minimum amount of key slices..
CSW: Correct.
COPA: And multiple files with different schemes.
CSW: Yes
COPA: One for Genesis block, then others for other things.
CSW: Correct.
COPA: You said there were 4 Shamir schemes. and then Freedman took you to a part of the doc about the 15 segments with a threshold of 12.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Disagreement about the bitmessage... Asked about the genesis block. Your answer was a loan of bitcoin and key controlling the genesis key. You refer repeatedly about a key in regards to the genesis block. Was that private or public key?
CSW: Neither. It was an HMAC generated with an ECDH method. There's no private key to the genesis block, but the public key and the block hash can create a secret to generate all the other keys from the list. The algo...
COPA: Freedman puts to you, an email from you to Rob MacGregor. You said here it's for the first ten blocks? So 11 here, 12 in Granath and ten in Kleiman.
CSW: This is a particular access in that particular file.
COPA: It looks like access to the keys for the purpose of the signing sessions.
CSW: That was a different file. There was 8/15, 12/15 schemes. I needed to access the algo to rebuild. the first ten are part of the first 11.
COPA: That's another explanation that was an excuse given on the fly.
CSW: I explained there were multiple schemes.
Hough: I need to speak with Gunning still. There are outstanding questions that need to be resolved.
Mellor: In the excel spreadsheets, there's a limit in size, and I can't see the whole white paper, for example.
Gunning: It links to an appendix. We do see editing history and anything that isn't redacted.
Mellor: [sounding like he may be unwell this morning] some of the redactions seem odd. Row 6, for example. Can you double check redactions [to CSW's team]
CSW team: We are looking at it. They are about claims to privilege from the folders where they were sourced. So far, they have been consistent with claims of privilege.
Hough: I'm told there's a column with truncation. I hadn't noticed personally.
Mellor: Wright may want to comment as well, so I won't rule that out.
Hough: We acknowledge he may need to be recalled.
EXAM CONTINUES
COPA: You insist bitcoin isn't a cryptocurrency despite Satoshi using the term. You challenged the Malmi email where it looks like they wrote the term.
CSW: There is no "they." Just me.
COPA: See the middle of this page. "Someone came up with the word cryptocurrency for bitcoin. Do you like it?" You accept this is real?
CSW: I do.
COPA: New email between Satoshi and Malmi. "P2P cryptocurrency sounds more interesting, yes?"
CSW: On top of that, there's SourceForge messages and open forum talks.
COPA: So Satoshi raised the idea of using the word.
CSW: No. It was raised by someone else.
COPA: Satoshi suggested it to Malmi
CSW: No, he was in the forums where it was first discussed.
COPA: And Satoshi instructed the change
CSW: You'll notice it was changed on the site (which was Malmi's job) before this discussion. I agreed at the time, and I have decided in time that the term was inaccurate.
[everyone sounds like they have sore throats today...]
COPA: Evidence from Granath proceedings. Gaining access to the keys
CSW: Access to the drive anyways...
COPA: You say you were unable to access the drive here.
CSW: Yes
COPA: You said you got key slices and advice from Baker MacKenzie
CSW: I see that
COPA: You stated you destroyed the hard drive with keys and key slices
CSW: It was an AES system collated. The key unlocks the drive. What is accessed is the algorithm that calculates the keys homomorphically.
COPA: You're clear here that they access the first 12 blocks, right?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Not the first 11 like you said yesterday?
CSW: MY first twelve
COPA: You said blocks 1-11 here and 12 in Granath. That's a difference.
CSW: I definitely had 1-11
COPA: You were wrong with Granath?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: In Kleiman trial, You were asked if you got access from Uyen. You said you had enough slices anyways.
CSW: Correct
COPA: You said the trust used shamir
CSW: The algorithm, not the entity.
COPA: You were asked what assets were controlled
CSW: In the current format, yes.
COPA: You were asked about the 2011.
CSW: That trust was settled and new members were added.
COPA: You were asked if Dave was involved in Tulip Trust. You said no
CSW: Correct
COPA: You said here he was holding slices of the trust.
CSW: that's the algorithm key slice.
COPA: Slices for creating a private key?
CSW: We have patents on this. Your expert explained a radically simpler system. We created a system that does this differently.
COPA: You were asked if you put bitcoin in the trust and said no. Did anyone? said no. Those were about Tulip Trust?
CSW: Some. People get confused by the trust and Tulip trust. The Tulip Trust owns companies that hold bitcoin in their holdings along with IP, software and other assets.
COPA: Your evidence now says that Tulip owns companies and companies own bitcoin?
CSW: Yes, and I don't own 100% of any of the companies or the Tulip Trust.
[He has been consistent on this point in every trial, and every attorney acts like he isn't]
COPA: Here you say you mined in 2009-2010 and put them into a trust based in Panama.
CSW: This was pre-Tulip Trust. Wright Intl had an agreement for the company to mine into Wright Intl Trust.
COPA: You said that in October 2012 Tulip Trust held bitcoin.
CSW: Not exactly. There were other structures. Tulip trading, by corpus...
COPA: So what you mean is not that the assets of the trust own bitcoin but that they own companies that own bitcoin.
CSW: Hence the language of "by corpus." I had to list every entity or beneficiary agreement where I owned interest.
COPA: But you didn't say you mined into a trust and consolidated into another trust?
CSW: I wasn't asked. A trust, by definition, if I'm not a trustee makes me not an owner. I also wasn't in charge of the companies.
COPA: Here's a list of companies that are trustees as well as PGP holders.
CSW: These docs came from machines from which I couldn't validate before the trust meeting in 2020, but I explained this.
COPA: This doc says Dave was a trustee.
CSW: I explained how this doc was altered. You acknowledged that the signature was an inserted image.
COPA: You explained that the original trustee was Dave. It was wrong when you said he was involved.
CSW: I have already explained. I didn't have access to anything when asked previously. Docs hadn't yet been analyzed. These came from employee laptops if you check the COC. They weren't real docs, but I didn't know they weren't real when we had to disclose them.
COPA: So which is it?! Are you saying you gave declaration not knowing or knowing from docs?
Mellor: So was Dave a trustee?
CSW: No
Mellor: Why was it said then?
CSW: The magistrate made me make a yes or no. I said I don't know if he was. I was told if I don't answer, I'd be in contempt. I told him I set it up so I wouldn't know, but I can't validate if the docs were real. I answered based on if this doc was real.
COPA: There's no such qualification here
CSW: I explained clearly, but had a similarly contentious conversation with Reinhart where nobody could understand the specifics. I threw this doc and was threatened for my behavior.
COPA: There's no evidence that that was this document.
CSW: I've been answering questions about being a blind beneficiary of a trust for many years.
COPA: So what you meant to say was you were pressured by the judge to say something.
CSW: By my solicitors..
COPA: PLEASE DONT SHARE PRIVILEGE INFO
Mellor: Here you nominate yourself as a trustee. How could you be a trustee without seeing the docs?
CSW: My signature isn't on this doc. This doc is fake. But created and on 2 staff laptops that also sent info to Ira. Savanna was a real company, and I know Uyen, but I couldn't go to anyone to see the real docs until 2020.
Mellor: So why did you nominate yourself as a trustee?
CSW: I listed what the doc said and the doc was bad.
Mellor: So why do it?
CSW: I told my US attorneys that I didn't know what to do with the conflicting docs. I know which one is real now, but I didn't know then.
Mellor: Who created all these?
CSW: Diane Pinter from Lloyds
Mellor: She drafted it. When?
CSW: I made the first draft in 2011, but then removed myself from the knowledge of further things. I gave input to Diane and people at Baker's to make the new trust deeds and in their restructyring in 2016, but I didn't get copies.
Mellor: Who was responsible for the new deeds in 2016?
CSW: My wife.
Mellor: Thank you
COPA: You see distribution of coins being mined and the bonded courier was meant to return key slices in 2020.
CSW: That's what was intended, yes.
COPA: So fragmented keys would come to you and allow you to generate keys.
CSW: Essentially, yes.
COPA: Is it right that access to this encrypted file would come from Dave or Bonded Courier?
CSW: It was meant to be that he gave it back or the courier did. But he died.
COPA: While being cross examined by Mr Freedman, he asks if the technical solution is based on the shamir scheme, so there's a minimum amount of key slices..
CSW: Correct.
COPA: And multiple files with different schemes.
CSW: Yes
COPA: One for Genesis block, then others for other things.
CSW: Correct.
COPA: You said there were 4 Shamir schemes. and then Freedman took you to a part of the doc about the 15 segments with a threshold of 12.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Disagreement about the bitmessage... Asked about the genesis block. Your answer was a loan of bitcoin and key controlling the genesis key. You refer repeatedly about a key in regards to the genesis block. Was that private or public key?
CSW: Neither. It was an HMAC generated with an ECDH method. There's no private key to the genesis block, but the public key and the block hash can create a secret to generate all the other keys from the list. The algo...
COPA: Freedman puts to you, an email from you to Rob MacGregor. You said here it's for the first ten blocks? So 11 here, 12 in Granath and ten in Kleiman.
CSW: This is a particular access in that particular file.
COPA: It looks like access to the keys for the purpose of the signing sessions.
CSW: That was a different file. There was 8/15, 12/15 schemes. I needed to access the algo to rebuild. the first ten are part of the first 11.
COPA: That's another explanation that was an excuse given on the fly.
CSW: I explained there were multiple schemes.
COPA: You explained that, but you also see you were asked to access the genesis block.
CSW: That's the part where I'm talking about the HMAC scheme.
COPA: Of course that's not what you said there.
CSW: I'm sorry you don't understand that 11 includes the first 10.
COPA: You didn't qualify it!
CSW: I did if you understand that each scheme describes a different set of data.
COPA: Take that off screen.
COPA: You said you couldn't get the bitcoins without key slices held by Dave.
CSW: Him or one of the other parties.
COPA: That's the million bitcoin?
CSW: Something like that.
COPA: 30 billion pounds worth?
CSW: Couldn't tell you...
COPA: You need Dave to access them?
CSW: You can always recover bitcoin with or without keys.
COPA: You were asked what would happen if the courier never arrived.
CSW: I keep saying it wasn't MY bitcoin. It was the trust's.
COPA: You explain this complicated structure with a mysterious courier that Dave was supposed to arrange.
CSW: You're confused by the price. When this was created, I was in debt and bitcoin was worth a dollar. I was worried about protecting my IP.
COPA: You said it was all beyond your reach except through Dave or the courier.
CSW: When I set this up, bitcoin wasn't worth hardly anything. The companies held the IP. I care about the IP more than anything. Core has used my patents and integrated them into BTC. My ideas and research are what I cared to lock away. All of the bitcoin together might have been worth 150k pounds, but my legal costs were 20X that, so I was trying to stop all of my stuff from being taken by McCartle, the ATO, etc... I didn't want to lose my life's work.
COPA: This is inconceivable to put this sum out of your reach.
CSW: It is not inconceivable at all. I was going through divorce. the bitcoin was a rounding error in all of this.
Mellor: The assets being out of reach. You could only get them from Dave or the courier?
CSW: Not fully. The ownership of the assets, and my notes on the drives... Everything is still in my head, but my belief at the time was that the worst case was that I got bankrupted and in 2020 when the bankruptcy would have been done, I could get it out of my head and patent everything from memory.
*******
My thoughts:
This is actually an interesting point. He set the trust up to be 7-8 years after the probable bankruptcy to make sure that would be free and clear and that he could start over if he had to. That makes more sense than randomly choosing 2020 to just get his bitcoins back.
CSW: That's the part where I'm talking about the HMAC scheme.
COPA: Of course that's not what you said there.
CSW: I'm sorry you don't understand that 11 includes the first 10.
COPA: You didn't qualify it!
CSW: I did if you understand that each scheme describes a different set of data.
COPA: Take that off screen.
COPA: You said you couldn't get the bitcoins without key slices held by Dave.
CSW: Him or one of the other parties.
COPA: That's the million bitcoin?
CSW: Something like that.
COPA: 30 billion pounds worth?
CSW: Couldn't tell you...
COPA: You need Dave to access them?
CSW: You can always recover bitcoin with or without keys.
COPA: You were asked what would happen if the courier never arrived.
CSW: I keep saying it wasn't MY bitcoin. It was the trust's.
COPA: You explain this complicated structure with a mysterious courier that Dave was supposed to arrange.
CSW: You're confused by the price. When this was created, I was in debt and bitcoin was worth a dollar. I was worried about protecting my IP.
COPA: You said it was all beyond your reach except through Dave or the courier.
CSW: When I set this up, bitcoin wasn't worth hardly anything. The companies held the IP. I care about the IP more than anything. Core has used my patents and integrated them into BTC. My ideas and research are what I cared to lock away. All of the bitcoin together might have been worth 150k pounds, but my legal costs were 20X that, so I was trying to stop all of my stuff from being taken by McCartle, the ATO, etc... I didn't want to lose my life's work.
COPA: This is inconceivable to put this sum out of your reach.
CSW: It is not inconceivable at all. I was going through divorce. the bitcoin was a rounding error in all of this.
Mellor: The assets being out of reach. You could only get them from Dave or the courier?
CSW: Not fully. The ownership of the assets, and my notes on the drives... Everything is still in my head, but my belief at the time was that the worst case was that I got bankrupted and in 2020 when the bankruptcy would have been done, I could get it out of my head and patent everything from memory.
*******
My thoughts:
This is actually an interesting point. He set the trust up to be 7-8 years after the probable bankruptcy to make sure that would be free and clear and that he could start over if he had to. That makes more sense than randomly choosing 2020 to just get his bitcoins back.
5 MINUTE BREAK
COPA: What IP did you settle in 2012?
CSW: Info Defense into Wright Intl including database rights and original idea papers. There were probably 1200 ideas about cryptographic technicques.
COPA: How many patents?
CSW: 1 with Wilson for a scheme to make a crypto vault.
COPA: Is this a gen email from MacGregor?
CSW: I can't tell
COPA: He talks about trustees and the doc. Is that the doc you're referring to?
CSW: It may be.
COPA: It's a specific trust document or looks like one
CSW: I didn't see it, so I can't answer.
COPA: The email says you need one formal consent outside yourself. Notably, Mayaka.
CSW: I responded about slices I need.
COPA: Said you and Ramona could sign for C01N and Panopticrypt. 1 and 8
CSW: Slices, not blocks.
COPA: Key distribution is explained and mention a spreadsheet. Do you have it?
CSW: If I did, it would have been disclosed.
COPA: Says Dave had slice 13, 14, 15
CSW: Yes.
COPA: You said this to Rob M?
CSW: Perhaps. The spreadsheet would explain it.
COPA: You said you controlled 7/8 of keys and then acquired 9 by 2016.
CSW: Yes
COPA: May 2016, it says you have Dave has 1,7,13,15 and other different details from previous exchanges. There are 5 other versions of this email from 16 May 2016 with same header and time, but all with slightly different content.
CSW: I knew there was at least 1 fake, but not 5.
COPA: We will go through all of them.
COPA: Why so many versions?
CSW: Probably because someone was accessing Ramona's email.
COPA: Why would they do that?
CSW: IDK. People were working with Ira and people wanted my companies in liquidation. Other than that, I don't know.
COPA: But why?
CSW: I can't analyze someone else's mind. I'm autistic.
COPA: Whichever email is correct, you were telling Rob that access to the keys was precisely through the arrangement in the trust.
CSW: The trust being the algo. I'm talking about the keys.
COPA: You gave him the info he requested.
CSW: I gave him what was necessary, but I didn't say anything else. I didn't trust Rob at that point.
COPA: You told Rob in 2016 that you needed slices to access keys from the document that you say you hadn't seen.
CSW: No, I had the spreadsheet, as I said.
COPA: In Kleiman and Granath, you rejected the trust deed.
CSW: I had learned that doc wasn't real. People held slices. They were not trustees of the Tulip Trust.
COPA: The Tulip Trust was an invention to trick the ATO, wasn't it?
CSW: No. WDI was created by DeMorgan and was transfered into other entities and became the Tulip Trust over time.
COPA: You created the Tulip Trust bitcoin story for Kleiman.
CSW: It would saved me millions to not be Satoshi or have bitcoin.
COPA: You had already been outed.
CSW: I hadn't talked about Satoshi stuff for years until I had to talk under oath. That created tons of pressure and delisting of BSV.
COPA: If you had denied being Satoshi, you'd be publicly confessing to be a liar.
CSW: I could have said I lost the keys or that I had lied. It would have ended that case quickly. I didn't want to come out in 2016 or later. I was forced in court under oath to admit that I was Satoshi.
COPA: You keep repurposing the Tulip story to make it make sense why you can't access the bitcoin keys.
CSW: Not at all.
COPA: You said in witness statement there's no keys to the Genesis Block.
CSW: Correct
COPA: From your interview with GQ in 2016, you are suggesting that you had the means to prove the genesis block.
CSW: Well I was clearly angry here. I mention the anchor is part of a hash chain and say I have the block not the key. You have to start a hash chain with something.
COPA: There is a pub key for the genesis block.
CSW: There's a number that looks like a pub key.
COPA: The experts agree there's a pub key used in the coinbase tx of this block.
CSW: Neither are cryptographers. Something being a string of numbers doesn't make it a key or that it has a private key.
COPA: There is a pub key used in the coinbase, and the real Satoshi wouldn't make this mistake.
CSW: I am Satoshi. I once wrote about Wormhole and burning coins with unknown keys and making something provably not spendable. I did a provable way to show it wasn't a pub key.
COPA: The experts disagree. Moving on.
CSW: Info Defense into Wright Intl including database rights and original idea papers. There were probably 1200 ideas about cryptographic technicques.
COPA: How many patents?
CSW: 1 with Wilson for a scheme to make a crypto vault.
COPA: Is this a gen email from MacGregor?
CSW: I can't tell
COPA: He talks about trustees and the doc. Is that the doc you're referring to?
CSW: It may be.
COPA: It's a specific trust document or looks like one
CSW: I didn't see it, so I can't answer.
COPA: The email says you need one formal consent outside yourself. Notably, Mayaka.
CSW: I responded about slices I need.
COPA: Said you and Ramona could sign for C01N and Panopticrypt. 1 and 8
CSW: Slices, not blocks.
COPA: Key distribution is explained and mention a spreadsheet. Do you have it?
CSW: If I did, it would have been disclosed.
COPA: Says Dave had slice 13, 14, 15
CSW: Yes.
COPA: You said this to Rob M?
CSW: Perhaps. The spreadsheet would explain it.
COPA: You said you controlled 7/8 of keys and then acquired 9 by 2016.
CSW: Yes
COPA: May 2016, it says you have Dave has 1,7,13,15 and other different details from previous exchanges. There are 5 other versions of this email from 16 May 2016 with same header and time, but all with slightly different content.
CSW: I knew there was at least 1 fake, but not 5.
COPA: We will go through all of them.
COPA: Why so many versions?
CSW: Probably because someone was accessing Ramona's email.
COPA: Why would they do that?
CSW: IDK. People were working with Ira and people wanted my companies in liquidation. Other than that, I don't know.
COPA: But why?
CSW: I can't analyze someone else's mind. I'm autistic.
COPA: Whichever email is correct, you were telling Rob that access to the keys was precisely through the arrangement in the trust.
CSW: The trust being the algo. I'm talking about the keys.
COPA: You gave him the info he requested.
CSW: I gave him what was necessary, but I didn't say anything else. I didn't trust Rob at that point.
COPA: You told Rob in 2016 that you needed slices to access keys from the document that you say you hadn't seen.
CSW: No, I had the spreadsheet, as I said.
COPA: In Kleiman and Granath, you rejected the trust deed.
CSW: I had learned that doc wasn't real. People held slices. They were not trustees of the Tulip Trust.
COPA: The Tulip Trust was an invention to trick the ATO, wasn't it?
CSW: No. WDI was created by DeMorgan and was transfered into other entities and became the Tulip Trust over time.
COPA: You created the Tulip Trust bitcoin story for Kleiman.
CSW: It would saved me millions to not be Satoshi or have bitcoin.
COPA: You had already been outed.
CSW: I hadn't talked about Satoshi stuff for years until I had to talk under oath. That created tons of pressure and delisting of BSV.
COPA: If you had denied being Satoshi, you'd be publicly confessing to be a liar.
CSW: I could have said I lost the keys or that I had lied. It would have ended that case quickly. I didn't want to come out in 2016 or later. I was forced in court under oath to admit that I was Satoshi.
COPA: You keep repurposing the Tulip story to make it make sense why you can't access the bitcoin keys.
CSW: Not at all.
COPA: You said in witness statement there's no keys to the Genesis Block.
CSW: Correct
COPA: From your interview with GQ in 2016, you are suggesting that you had the means to prove the genesis block.
CSW: Well I was clearly angry here. I mention the anchor is part of a hash chain and say I have the block not the key. You have to start a hash chain with something.
COPA: There is a pub key for the genesis block.
CSW: There's a number that looks like a pub key.
COPA: The experts agree there's a pub key used in the coinbase tx of this block.
CSW: Neither are cryptographers. Something being a string of numbers doesn't make it a key or that it has a private key.
COPA: There is a pub key used in the coinbase, and the real Satoshi wouldn't make this mistake.
CSW: I am Satoshi. I once wrote about Wormhole and burning coins with unknown keys and making something provably not spendable. I did a provable way to show it wasn't a pub key.
COPA: The experts disagree. Moving on.
COPA: 2011-2014 over tax rebate claims.
CSW: Companies I was with had a few disputes. Between 2009 and 2013 there were individual and corporate disputes. Then until 2016 there were corporate disputes only.
COPA: In 2013, you started talking about bitcoin mining.
CSW: No. There was a private ruling, but not discussed on mining.
COPA: These were assumed facts, not findings.
CSW: It was post-audit, so no, it was in detail.
COPA: They concluded it included W&D ID was given. You claimed D Reese helped with notes that went into bitcoin.
CSW: This was in ATO docs too, before his death, yes.
COPA: You are very keen to go back to your personal claims, but we're talking about claims from C01N.
CSW: Integys was in administration with the high net worth team.
COPA: You claim you paid Rees for his work and claimed a tax credit. And explain that he held key slices. You said He must have transferred keys back 3 days before his death.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Were you responsible for the ATO being informed that Rees was provided with keys? And the other information here?
CSW: No. They were told he was transferred bitcoin at a particular time. They then chose to do the audit after he died because he couldn't do anything.
COPA: So the ATO misrecorded?
CSW: Yes, that's why we held the tribunal.
COPA: They communicated with all 4 of his daughters. None of the daughters had any knowledge of you, the payment, the bitcoin or the suggestion that he was consulting.
CSW: They weren't involved. I never met them either.
COPA: You said he was doing substantial work for 2 million dollars, but his family didn't know?
CSW: I agreed to transfer bitcoin based on notes that went way back. It was worth a lot less when the deal was made.
COPA: His daughter said Rees never took consulting work at all.
CSW: Again, that's not how I framed it. I had, going back to the 90's, discussed math with Rees and gave him a percentage. When I gave it, it was nominal. He was a professor.
COPA: This is another fictitious relationship like Gareth Williams.
CSW: I gave Rees' info in 2012 when he was still alive and working. They did the same with Liberty Reserve. They didn't ask until the evidence was gone, but I gave it.
COPA: How old was Rees when he did this?
CSW: Not sure. My grandfather's age.
COPA: In his 90's!
CSW: We spoke years before on these things.
COPA: You were heavily occupied with these tax proceedings.
CSW: We had KPMG and Earnst&Young working on them, so we were not particularly occupied.
CSW: Companies I was with had a few disputes. Between 2009 and 2013 there were individual and corporate disputes. Then until 2016 there were corporate disputes only.
COPA: In 2013, you started talking about bitcoin mining.
CSW: No. There was a private ruling, but not discussed on mining.
COPA: These were assumed facts, not findings.
CSW: It was post-audit, so no, it was in detail.
COPA: They concluded it included W&D ID was given. You claimed D Reese helped with notes that went into bitcoin.
CSW: This was in ATO docs too, before his death, yes.
COPA: You are very keen to go back to your personal claims, but we're talking about claims from C01N.
CSW: Integys was in administration with the high net worth team.
COPA: You claim you paid Rees for his work and claimed a tax credit. And explain that he held key slices. You said He must have transferred keys back 3 days before his death.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Were you responsible for the ATO being informed that Rees was provided with keys? And the other information here?
CSW: No. They were told he was transferred bitcoin at a particular time. They then chose to do the audit after he died because he couldn't do anything.
COPA: So the ATO misrecorded?
CSW: Yes, that's why we held the tribunal.
COPA: They communicated with all 4 of his daughters. None of the daughters had any knowledge of you, the payment, the bitcoin or the suggestion that he was consulting.
CSW: They weren't involved. I never met them either.
COPA: You said he was doing substantial work for 2 million dollars, but his family didn't know?
CSW: I agreed to transfer bitcoin based on notes that went way back. It was worth a lot less when the deal was made.
COPA: His daughter said Rees never took consulting work at all.
CSW: Again, that's not how I framed it. I had, going back to the 90's, discussed math with Rees and gave him a percentage. When I gave it, it was nominal. He was a professor.
COPA: This is another fictitious relationship like Gareth Williams.
CSW: I gave Rees' info in 2012 when he was still alive and working. They did the same with Liberty Reserve. They didn't ask until the evidence was gone, but I gave it.
COPA: How old was Rees when he did this?
CSW: Not sure. My grandfather's age.
COPA: In his 90's!
CSW: We spoke years before on these things.
COPA: You were heavily occupied with these tax proceedings.
CSW: We had KPMG and Earnst&Young working on them, so we were not particularly occupied.
COPA: 2009 blog post.
CSW: Note it's not IT security blog. Digital forensics and such.
COPA: Shown captured here. Bitcoin conversation saying bitcoin launches tomorrow. Was this a genuine post from January 10, 2009?
CSW: I don't post on my blogs. Ever. It's always run by 3rd parties. My current one is run by 3rd parties.
COPA: Would you say this post was put up on Jan 10, 2009?
CSW: I don't know. I don't run blogs.
COPA: Who would it have been?
CSW: I had an American named David - not Kleiman. I don't recall. He was a contractor with Info Defense.
COPA: This would blow your cover as Satoshi?
CSW: Did Hal Finney running bitcoin blow anything?
COPA: In the index, we can see that there was only one article from then. Now, there's 2 articles from different captures.
CSW: Yep
COPA: Why the changes?
CSW: In blogger, you can have hidden and public posts, but this is all linked to the Gizmodo outing and as part of Maxwell's discrediting.
COPA: The article from Wired and Gizmodo, this was leaked to them. The plain meaning is that it was backdated and posted.
CSW: Likely 2014 when Kleiman problems started.
COPA: Wayback makes it seem like Feb 2014. Before issues with Kleiman.
CSW: Kleiman had lawyer engaged before he ever even emailed me.
COPA: So Ira might be responsible for backdated post on your blog?
CSW: I said it would be linked to that stuff. I had other disgruntled employees. I don't know why they started doing this.
COPA: So employees did all this? That's your hypothesis?
CSW: I don't have a hypothesis.
COPA: The simpler explanation is that you put it up in early 2014 because that's when you started staking a claim to be Satoshi.
CSW: The tax office knew I was Satoshi before that.
COPA: That's disputed. You told people in the ATO in 2009 that you created bitcoin?
CSW: Yes
COPA: With docs?
CSW: Yes. That's why the private ruling in 2013 included mining from 2009.
COPA: Do you have 2009 docs?
CSW: Multiple firms did the audit from 2009 to 2013.
COPA: It's clear they're working on assumed facts.
Mellor: If you don't answer, I'll assume you don't have docs. Please answer the question.
CSW: I don't know what docs are in disclosure. Some of the accounting docs are, but I don't have an exhaustive understanding of what is in there.
COPA: Do you accept that in 2014-15, the blog post was deleted and replaced with this teasing one?
CSW: Yes, this is from during the Wired and Gizmodo outings
5 MINUTE BREAK
CSW: Note it's not IT security blog. Digital forensics and such.
COPA: Shown captured here. Bitcoin conversation saying bitcoin launches tomorrow. Was this a genuine post from January 10, 2009?
CSW: I don't post on my blogs. Ever. It's always run by 3rd parties. My current one is run by 3rd parties.
COPA: Would you say this post was put up on Jan 10, 2009?
CSW: I don't know. I don't run blogs.
COPA: Who would it have been?
CSW: I had an American named David - not Kleiman. I don't recall. He was a contractor with Info Defense.
COPA: This would blow your cover as Satoshi?
CSW: Did Hal Finney running bitcoin blow anything?
COPA: In the index, we can see that there was only one article from then. Now, there's 2 articles from different captures.
CSW: Yep
COPA: Why the changes?
CSW: In blogger, you can have hidden and public posts, but this is all linked to the Gizmodo outing and as part of Maxwell's discrediting.
COPA: The article from Wired and Gizmodo, this was leaked to them. The plain meaning is that it was backdated and posted.
CSW: Likely 2014 when Kleiman problems started.
COPA: Wayback makes it seem like Feb 2014. Before issues with Kleiman.
CSW: Kleiman had lawyer engaged before he ever even emailed me.
COPA: So Ira might be responsible for backdated post on your blog?
CSW: I said it would be linked to that stuff. I had other disgruntled employees. I don't know why they started doing this.
COPA: So employees did all this? That's your hypothesis?
CSW: I don't have a hypothesis.
COPA: The simpler explanation is that you put it up in early 2014 because that's when you started staking a claim to be Satoshi.
CSW: The tax office knew I was Satoshi before that.
COPA: That's disputed. You told people in the ATO in 2009 that you created bitcoin?
CSW: Yes
COPA: With docs?
CSW: Yes. That's why the private ruling in 2013 included mining from 2009.
COPA: Do you have 2009 docs?
CSW: Multiple firms did the audit from 2009 to 2013.
COPA: It's clear they're working on assumed facts.
Mellor: If you don't answer, I'll assume you don't have docs. Please answer the question.
CSW: I don't know what docs are in disclosure. Some of the accounting docs are, but I don't have an exhaustive understanding of what is in there.
COPA: Do you accept that in 2014-15, the blog post was deleted and replaced with this teasing one?
CSW: Yes, this is from during the Wired and Gizmodo outings
5 MINUTE BREAK
Tips appreciated at handcash.me/kurt
COPA: New Topic. Dealings with Stefan and Rob. You said you reestablished contact with him in early 2014?
CSW: Yes
COPA: January 2014?
CSW: Around then. I knew him before too.
COPA: He introduced you to Rob from nTrust?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Is this a genuine email?
CSW: I think so.
COPA: At this stage, no progress on the business?
CSW: YEs
COPA: Aroudn the same time, you were emailing Louie Kleiman about bitcoin stuff.
CSW: My assistant was. Dave had shares, so we were working on contact.
COPA: This is a reliance doc. DeMorgan investment pack. October 2014. When produced?
CSW: Staff made it, so IDK.
COPA: You said you don't do powerpoint.
CSW: I don't. Staff did.
COPA: Contacted Stefan again in 2015. Pretty desperate time?
CSW: I didn't know how to get out of tax problems at the time, yes.
COPA: Stefan in a @RealCoinGeek interview said staff was down to near zero.
CSW: We had a few devs and stuff. Probably down to 25% staff at the time, yea. But not zero.
COPA: Enter Calvin here.
CSW: We talked about selling bitcoin to Calvin initially.
COPA: So not about investment?
CSW: Well, first idea was to sell him bitcoin.
COPA: It says here Supercomputers, and other things?
CSW: All related to bitcoin. I Wanted to make it about the businesses too, but it started with just selling him bitcoin.
COPA: You were upfront about being Satoshi?
CSW: No. Selling the bitcoin had nothing to do with identity. I didn't tell Rob or Calvin initially.
COPA: You wanted to sell him bitcoin the system though?
CSW: No, tokens. Like BTC in an OTC trade.
COPA: The whole investment pack doesn't mention bitcoin.
CSW: He was the head of Bodog, so I pitched him on using bitcoin.
COPA: It doesn't look like that. It looks like you wanted investment in your companies.
CSW: Yes, I would love that.
COPA: You needed the money to get out of a huge hole.
CSW: Spending 60m dollars per year on my projects. Teranode right now costs 18m per month.
COPA: Moving on.
CSW: Yes
COPA: January 2014?
CSW: Around then. I knew him before too.
COPA: He introduced you to Rob from nTrust?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Is this a genuine email?
CSW: I think so.
COPA: At this stage, no progress on the business?
CSW: YEs
COPA: Aroudn the same time, you were emailing Louie Kleiman about bitcoin stuff.
CSW: My assistant was. Dave had shares, so we were working on contact.
COPA: This is a reliance doc. DeMorgan investment pack. October 2014. When produced?
CSW: Staff made it, so IDK.
COPA: You said you don't do powerpoint.
CSW: I don't. Staff did.
COPA: Contacted Stefan again in 2015. Pretty desperate time?
CSW: I didn't know how to get out of tax problems at the time, yes.
COPA: Stefan in a @RealCoinGeek interview said staff was down to near zero.
CSW: We had a few devs and stuff. Probably down to 25% staff at the time, yea. But not zero.
COPA: Enter Calvin here.
CSW: We talked about selling bitcoin to Calvin initially.
COPA: So not about investment?
CSW: Well, first idea was to sell him bitcoin.
COPA: It says here Supercomputers, and other things?
CSW: All related to bitcoin. I Wanted to make it about the businesses too, but it started with just selling him bitcoin.
COPA: You were upfront about being Satoshi?
CSW: No. Selling the bitcoin had nothing to do with identity. I didn't tell Rob or Calvin initially.
COPA: You wanted to sell him bitcoin the system though?
CSW: No, tokens. Like BTC in an OTC trade.
COPA: The whole investment pack doesn't mention bitcoin.
CSW: He was the head of Bodog, so I pitched him on using bitcoin.
COPA: It doesn't look like that. It looks like you wanted investment in your companies.
CSW: Yes, I would love that.
COPA: You needed the money to get out of a huge hole.
CSW: Spending 60m dollars per year on my projects. Teranode right now costs 18m per month.
COPA: Moving on.
COPA: Matthews wants to build a cryptocurrency for nTrust, Rob's company. There was a discussion in Manila.
CSW: Yes
COPA: Emails between you, Rob and @CalvinAyre show a letter of intent. Was that for the business deal?
CSW: Calvin had a lot of businesses. I did a deal with Rob at that stage.
COPA: You mention the ATO. You wanted legal fees funded?
CSW: I would have used the money for going to court with the ATO, yes.
COPA: Email From Calvin to you: How much are asking for?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: You say 18m option. Some for you and some for more R&D.
CSW: Yes, an offset.
COPA: Then a fancy restructuring?
CSW: Yes
COPA: You say to Ayre "I won't leave a debt ever." Ayre says he wants you to fix it and keep the project alive. Then another email saying pay Clayton Utz to help with ATO... So you were dealing with Ayre for a fighting fund for the ATO?
CSW: There were multiple dealings going on. I was working with Rob, but we agreed to nominally sell them 100k bitcoin in escrow that they would hold.
COPA: Response was Stefan would go out to make sense of it all and organize it. Rob would come along.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: You wanted Ayre to send Rob and Stefan to get into your books and business?
CSW: No, Rob was separate, but he was working with Bodog as a payment supplier. All of this work would help nTrust with their money transfer business and make Calvin's life simpler too. Stefan representing the broader deal, Rob on his deal and Calvin on the escrow deal.
COPA: Email between Ramona and Alan Peterson. Alan worked in your businesses.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Alan asking you to pop in to "look like we're doing business." Asking if Nick and someone else is in the office. Ramona said the Canadians will be in the office so it would be good to have some staff in the office. She's talking about Rob and Stefan?
CSW: No, Rob and nTrust people are canadian. Not Stefan.
COPA: So she's trying to make it look busy and look like you're in business.
CSW: Some were part time and some were working from home to reduce cost at this point, yes.
COPA: As Stefan said, you were trying to impress the investors despite having little staff left.
CSW: It's just as I said.
LUNCH BREAK
CSW: Yes
COPA: Emails between you, Rob and @CalvinAyre show a letter of intent. Was that for the business deal?
CSW: Calvin had a lot of businesses. I did a deal with Rob at that stage.
COPA: You mention the ATO. You wanted legal fees funded?
CSW: I would have used the money for going to court with the ATO, yes.
COPA: Email From Calvin to you: How much are asking for?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: You say 18m option. Some for you and some for more R&D.
CSW: Yes, an offset.
COPA: Then a fancy restructuring?
CSW: Yes
COPA: You say to Ayre "I won't leave a debt ever." Ayre says he wants you to fix it and keep the project alive. Then another email saying pay Clayton Utz to help with ATO... So you were dealing with Ayre for a fighting fund for the ATO?
CSW: There were multiple dealings going on. I was working with Rob, but we agreed to nominally sell them 100k bitcoin in escrow that they would hold.
COPA: Response was Stefan would go out to make sense of it all and organize it. Rob would come along.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: You wanted Ayre to send Rob and Stefan to get into your books and business?
CSW: No, Rob was separate, but he was working with Bodog as a payment supplier. All of this work would help nTrust with their money transfer business and make Calvin's life simpler too. Stefan representing the broader deal, Rob on his deal and Calvin on the escrow deal.
COPA: Email between Ramona and Alan Peterson. Alan worked in your businesses.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Alan asking you to pop in to "look like we're doing business." Asking if Nick and someone else is in the office. Ramona said the Canadians will be in the office so it would be good to have some staff in the office. She's talking about Rob and Stefan?
CSW: No, Rob and nTrust people are canadian. Not Stefan.
COPA: So she's trying to make it look busy and look like you're in business.
CSW: Some were part time and some were working from home to reduce cost at this point, yes.
COPA: As Stefan said, you were trying to impress the investors despite having little staff left.
CSW: It's just as I said.
LUNCH BREAK
If you would like the video summary, please subscribe at my home page for $2.99/month.
https://x.com/kurtwuckertjr/status/1757401614963425396?s=20
Aaaaaand we're back.
AFTERNOON.
COPA: June 2015 conversations between Rob, @TurkeyChop and @CalvinAyre and yourself... Are these your signatures?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Newco would purchase DeMorgan IP for millions?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: And a contract for a convertible loan for 1.5 million.
CSW: Yes
COPA: And the Wrights would get 37% of Newco.
CSW: YEs
COPA: And exclusive rights to your life story
CSW: Yes
COPA: And a subsidiary of Newco for R&D?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Do you recognize this about the convertible note? To fund fees to Clayton Utz.
CSW: I see it, yes.
COPA: We see equity for the Wrights in the Newco doesn't appear in the final?
CSW: I don't recall
COPA: And bridge financing here.
CSW: I see that.
COPA: By June 2015, there was a deal to bail out your companies.
CSW: We wanted the IP locked away from the ATO, and I didn't want to sell to McQuarry bank.
COPA: You had claimed to be Satoshi here.
CSW: No, it doesn't appear here.
COPA: the life story wasn't about Satoshi?
CSW: It was about being a prolific inventor of thousands of patents.
COPA: So Stefan and Rob didn't know the story included your claim to be Satoshi.
CSW: I don't know what they knew, thought, felt, etc...
COPA: At the time of these terms, to your knowledge to Stefan know you were Satoshi?
CSW: I gave him a white paper, so he would have been in the know.
COPA: Did Rob?
CSW: I have no idea.
COPA: Stefan was the signatory. He knew the story would have been about the Satoshi stuff too?
CSW: Not necessarily.
COPA: But Stefan would have known.
CSW: It was about the inventions and the IP. I spoke to stefan about all of it, and it was about the growth of our massive IP portfolio and the company.
COPA: So it wasn't going t o include the satoshi story?
CSW: I have no idea.
COPA: A Multimillion deal, and you didn't know if it would be included?
CSW: I entered into a smaller deal so I could stop being a CEO and get to sit and invent things.
COPA: How many patents were there at this stage?
CSW: I had 1300 ready to be turned into patents, but I didn't know how. That's why I needed this deal.
COPA: Shortly after the deal, Clayton removed their association with you.
CSW: Someone sent in fabricated docs to them, yes.
COPA: Mr Somer was a solicitor?
CSW: Partner there.
COPA: He wrote an email to Ramona saying they submitted emails on your instruction.
CSW: Forensics show they weren't me. They came from an ATO server.
COPA: 6 July 2015, Mr Somer terminated the retainer which raised questions of integrity about the docs.
CSW: From the firm, not from me.
COPA: Email to your wife, he didn't believe those words?
CSW: He was under pressure from the ATO.
COPA: Have you confirmed this?
CSW: Yes, but everyone keeps saying privilege. Those docs came from the ATO server. Those are in disclosure.
COPA: He said "we" don't believe they're credible.
CSW: "we" means the firm. He was out-voted due to pressure.
COPA: Did you inform Stefan and such?
CSW: Of course.
COPA: You say here you want to be honest in an email.
CSW: I don't recall.
COPA: Does this looks like your text?
CSW: Not really.
COPA: Do you know this company? "Tyche?" (SP?)
CSW: I think it was Rob's UK entity.
COPA: Do you recall this email? from your witness statement?
CSW: I don't.
COPA: You don't recall it?
CSW: I recall the statement, but I don't recall this email off the top of my head.
COPA: Met with lead literary agent in London. Do you remember this in October 2015?
CSW: No, I was traveling to the UK at that point.
COPA: You see this about the Satoshi project?
CSW: Can you see who the email was from? It says Craig Wright, but it doesn't mean it was my email address.
COPA: Did you see the doc in the course of preparing your witness statement?
CSW: I didn't recognize it then either.
COPA: If I was in that situation, I would be jolly sure that it wasn't a fake.
CSW: I have been noting the fake documents for some time.
COPA: Your wife responds saying you were captivated by Dai and May's Blacknet work. Recognize?
CSW: I was traveling at the time. It was my move to London.
COPA: Do you recognize this email?
CSW: I'm not Craig@tyche email.
COPA: It doesn't say that on here.
CSW: One of them does.
COPA: Is the content genuine?
CSW: I don't know. It's to an email address I don't control.
COPA: It discusses a proof package including Satoshi's private keys. Was that being discussed?
CSW: I wouldn't have given my private keys.
COPA: Is Rob discussing it?
CSW: I have no idea. That wasn't my email.
COPA: So this isn't genuine from Craig @ Tyche either?
CSW: No, I never worked for that company.
COPA: So it's all fake?
CSW: I have no idea.
COPA: who created it?
CSW: Probably someone at Tyche
COPA: Who are you fingering for this?
CSW: No idea.
COPA: Do you accept that if any of these are genuine, you were discussing the Satoshi outing matters before Wired and Gizmodo.
CW: If I created justicemellor@gmail, that doesn't make me him.
COPA: You didn't engage in any discussion of the outing before the Wired and Gizmodo?
CSW: No.
COPA: Your solicitors disclosed these and nothing was said that they were unaccepted.
CSW: We disclosed everything from employee laptops, bad servers, evidence from Greg Maxwell to the ATO, evidence from Ira... Just because it's in a pile doesn't mean I'm owning it as genuine.
COPA: Your reply in the Granath proceedings here: A big Satoshi reveal, but after the articles from Wired and Giz, claimant was reluctantly persuaded to include the Satoshi stuff in the life story.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Discussions from 2015 about Satoshi wouldn't have included any Satoshi stuff?
CSW: It was about the companies which would have included the bitcoin R&D.
COPA: There were discussions about extending the story.
CSW: In 2016. In 2015, we would document the company work.
COPA: From Stefan's statement, he talks about 6 months after the deal struck.
CSW: Sure.
COPA: He says it was about his life story and the history of bitcoin. He had helped Wright get more comfortable with the idea of the book.
CSW: I see that.
COPA: This forward from Stefan says history of bitcoin.
CSW: My company and patents include that. Rob wanted this, but I didn't have a Tyche email. He appears to be sending this to Stefan and Calvin in order to make them think I was now on board with Satoshi story.
COPA: So Rob is the person who sent it?!
CSW: Maybe.
COPA: Stefan says he helped you get comfortable with Satoshi Story.
CSW: In 2016. Before that, it was all about the company.
COPA: Here is says the Tyche email is you
CSW: No: it Craig and Cwright are different. This may have been a forwarding address.
COPA: Is this one about Wired and Gizmodo real?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Email to Wired and Giz warning them?
CSW: they were going to publish stolen and private information.
COPA: You're saying the government leaked?
CSW: Part of it. they sent to Ira who forwarded them. He shouldn't have had them in the first place.
COPA: They leaked you as Satoshi?
CSW: I don't know what they were trying to do.
COPA: But you were outed.
CSW: They wanted me taken down right after. G Maxwell, your client, was part of all of that.
COPA: Do you have evidence it's from the gov instead of from anyone else?
CSW: The encryption key was maintained by the ATO. The ATO version encryption was signed by someone with their keys. The marker shows whose copy, and it was ATO internal copy.
COPA: You see here there are irretrievable docs from your behalf.
CSW: Yes
COPA: You see cwright@tyche?
CSW: This was listed with docs. I listed irretrievable because I don't control it and never did.
COPA: Are any other fake emails here?
CSW: Tyche email addresses exist, but they weren't mine or under my control. They aren't fake. They aren't MINE.
COPA: If your position is you lost access, you must have had access.
CSW: It says, I don't have access.
COPA: An anon source leaked docs
CSW: Yes
COPA: Evidence includes blog posts, leaked emails, materials concerning Tulip Trust, and encrypted email to you, from an email address in Panama referencing a book from Craig's twitter. You say this email didn't come from you?
CSW: I am not Tessier Ashpool. If you knew the book, you'd know why I wouldn't be that character,
COPA: You did this didn't you?
CSW: Maxwell contacted Wired
COPA: Stop the allegations! This speculated this?
CSW: Maxwell PUBLISHED his takedown.
COPA: These were later debunked.
CSW: Maxwell came out saying it was all fake because of the key structure because nobody could do this because of PGP. I debunked his debunking, although not saying it was my key, but he fabricated this response2 days prior to the article meaning he knew it was coming or he knew before Wired even knew.
COPA: You went to great lengths to show this wasn't real. You wrote a paper!
CSW: Lol, I write papers every day. I was being slandered.
COPA: The docs were fake?
CSW: Some were, some weren't. The real evidence is tainted by the fake.
COPA: It's pretty extraordinary to go to great length to debunk Maxwell over keys that weren't your keys?
CSW: One of them was mine. The others weren't. He said my keys were fabricated but tossed them all in claiming they're fake.
COPA: I don't accept that you would have Satoshi's PGP keys. You then went to London?
CSW: I was there before and after.
COPA: When did you physically move?
CSW: My son started school in London before any of this. We had found a house, and I was transitioning. I was already a resident.
AFTERNOON.
COPA: June 2015 conversations between Rob, @TurkeyChop and @CalvinAyre and yourself... Are these your signatures?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Newco would purchase DeMorgan IP for millions?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: And a contract for a convertible loan for 1.5 million.
CSW: Yes
COPA: And the Wrights would get 37% of Newco.
CSW: YEs
COPA: And exclusive rights to your life story
CSW: Yes
COPA: And a subsidiary of Newco for R&D?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Do you recognize this about the convertible note? To fund fees to Clayton Utz.
CSW: I see it, yes.
COPA: We see equity for the Wrights in the Newco doesn't appear in the final?
CSW: I don't recall
COPA: And bridge financing here.
CSW: I see that.
COPA: By June 2015, there was a deal to bail out your companies.
CSW: We wanted the IP locked away from the ATO, and I didn't want to sell to McQuarry bank.
COPA: You had claimed to be Satoshi here.
CSW: No, it doesn't appear here.
COPA: the life story wasn't about Satoshi?
CSW: It was about being a prolific inventor of thousands of patents.
COPA: So Stefan and Rob didn't know the story included your claim to be Satoshi.
CSW: I don't know what they knew, thought, felt, etc...
COPA: At the time of these terms, to your knowledge to Stefan know you were Satoshi?
CSW: I gave him a white paper, so he would have been in the know.
COPA: Did Rob?
CSW: I have no idea.
COPA: Stefan was the signatory. He knew the story would have been about the Satoshi stuff too?
CSW: Not necessarily.
COPA: But Stefan would have known.
CSW: It was about the inventions and the IP. I spoke to stefan about all of it, and it was about the growth of our massive IP portfolio and the company.
COPA: So it wasn't going t o include the satoshi story?
CSW: I have no idea.
COPA: A Multimillion deal, and you didn't know if it would be included?
CSW: I entered into a smaller deal so I could stop being a CEO and get to sit and invent things.
COPA: How many patents were there at this stage?
CSW: I had 1300 ready to be turned into patents, but I didn't know how. That's why I needed this deal.
COPA: Shortly after the deal, Clayton removed their association with you.
CSW: Someone sent in fabricated docs to them, yes.
COPA: Mr Somer was a solicitor?
CSW: Partner there.
COPA: He wrote an email to Ramona saying they submitted emails on your instruction.
CSW: Forensics show they weren't me. They came from an ATO server.
COPA: 6 July 2015, Mr Somer terminated the retainer which raised questions of integrity about the docs.
CSW: From the firm, not from me.
COPA: Email to your wife, he didn't believe those words?
CSW: He was under pressure from the ATO.
COPA: Have you confirmed this?
CSW: Yes, but everyone keeps saying privilege. Those docs came from the ATO server. Those are in disclosure.
COPA: He said "we" don't believe they're credible.
CSW: "we" means the firm. He was out-voted due to pressure.
COPA: Did you inform Stefan and such?
CSW: Of course.
COPA: You say here you want to be honest in an email.
CSW: I don't recall.
COPA: Does this looks like your text?
CSW: Not really.
COPA: Do you know this company? "Tyche?" (SP?)
CSW: I think it was Rob's UK entity.
COPA: Do you recall this email? from your witness statement?
CSW: I don't.
COPA: You don't recall it?
CSW: I recall the statement, but I don't recall this email off the top of my head.
COPA: Met with lead literary agent in London. Do you remember this in October 2015?
CSW: No, I was traveling to the UK at that point.
COPA: You see this about the Satoshi project?
CSW: Can you see who the email was from? It says Craig Wright, but it doesn't mean it was my email address.
COPA: Did you see the doc in the course of preparing your witness statement?
CSW: I didn't recognize it then either.
COPA: If I was in that situation, I would be jolly sure that it wasn't a fake.
CSW: I have been noting the fake documents for some time.
COPA: Your wife responds saying you were captivated by Dai and May's Blacknet work. Recognize?
CSW: I was traveling at the time. It was my move to London.
COPA: Do you recognize this email?
CSW: I'm not Craig@tyche email.
COPA: It doesn't say that on here.
CSW: One of them does.
COPA: Is the content genuine?
CSW: I don't know. It's to an email address I don't control.
COPA: It discusses a proof package including Satoshi's private keys. Was that being discussed?
CSW: I wouldn't have given my private keys.
COPA: Is Rob discussing it?
CSW: I have no idea. That wasn't my email.
COPA: So this isn't genuine from Craig @ Tyche either?
CSW: No, I never worked for that company.
COPA: So it's all fake?
CSW: I have no idea.
COPA: who created it?
CSW: Probably someone at Tyche
COPA: Who are you fingering for this?
CSW: No idea.
COPA: Do you accept that if any of these are genuine, you were discussing the Satoshi outing matters before Wired and Gizmodo.
CW: If I created justicemellor@gmail, that doesn't make me him.
COPA: You didn't engage in any discussion of the outing before the Wired and Gizmodo?
CSW: No.
COPA: Your solicitors disclosed these and nothing was said that they were unaccepted.
CSW: We disclosed everything from employee laptops, bad servers, evidence from Greg Maxwell to the ATO, evidence from Ira... Just because it's in a pile doesn't mean I'm owning it as genuine.
COPA: Your reply in the Granath proceedings here: A big Satoshi reveal, but after the articles from Wired and Giz, claimant was reluctantly persuaded to include the Satoshi stuff in the life story.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Discussions from 2015 about Satoshi wouldn't have included any Satoshi stuff?
CSW: It was about the companies which would have included the bitcoin R&D.
COPA: There were discussions about extending the story.
CSW: In 2016. In 2015, we would document the company work.
COPA: From Stefan's statement, he talks about 6 months after the deal struck.
CSW: Sure.
COPA: He says it was about his life story and the history of bitcoin. He had helped Wright get more comfortable with the idea of the book.
CSW: I see that.
COPA: This forward from Stefan says history of bitcoin.
CSW: My company and patents include that. Rob wanted this, but I didn't have a Tyche email. He appears to be sending this to Stefan and Calvin in order to make them think I was now on board with Satoshi story.
COPA: So Rob is the person who sent it?!
CSW: Maybe.
COPA: Stefan says he helped you get comfortable with Satoshi Story.
CSW: In 2016. Before that, it was all about the company.
COPA: Here is says the Tyche email is you
CSW: No: it Craig and Cwright are different. This may have been a forwarding address.
COPA: Is this one about Wired and Gizmodo real?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Email to Wired and Giz warning them?
CSW: they were going to publish stolen and private information.
COPA: You're saying the government leaked?
CSW: Part of it. they sent to Ira who forwarded them. He shouldn't have had them in the first place.
COPA: They leaked you as Satoshi?
CSW: I don't know what they were trying to do.
COPA: But you were outed.
CSW: They wanted me taken down right after. G Maxwell, your client, was part of all of that.
COPA: Do you have evidence it's from the gov instead of from anyone else?
CSW: The encryption key was maintained by the ATO. The ATO version encryption was signed by someone with their keys. The marker shows whose copy, and it was ATO internal copy.
COPA: You see here there are irretrievable docs from your behalf.
CSW: Yes
COPA: You see cwright@tyche?
CSW: This was listed with docs. I listed irretrievable because I don't control it and never did.
COPA: Are any other fake emails here?
CSW: Tyche email addresses exist, but they weren't mine or under my control. They aren't fake. They aren't MINE.
COPA: If your position is you lost access, you must have had access.
CSW: It says, I don't have access.
COPA: An anon source leaked docs
CSW: Yes
COPA: Evidence includes blog posts, leaked emails, materials concerning Tulip Trust, and encrypted email to you, from an email address in Panama referencing a book from Craig's twitter. You say this email didn't come from you?
CSW: I am not Tessier Ashpool. If you knew the book, you'd know why I wouldn't be that character,
COPA: You did this didn't you?
CSW: Maxwell contacted Wired
COPA: Stop the allegations! This speculated this?
CSW: Maxwell PUBLISHED his takedown.
COPA: These were later debunked.
CSW: Maxwell came out saying it was all fake because of the key structure because nobody could do this because of PGP. I debunked his debunking, although not saying it was my key, but he fabricated this response2 days prior to the article meaning he knew it was coming or he knew before Wired even knew.
COPA: You went to great lengths to show this wasn't real. You wrote a paper!
CSW: Lol, I write papers every day. I was being slandered.
COPA: The docs were fake?
CSW: Some were, some weren't. The real evidence is tainted by the fake.
COPA: It's pretty extraordinary to go to great length to debunk Maxwell over keys that weren't your keys?
CSW: One of them was mine. The others weren't. He said my keys were fabricated but tossed them all in claiming they're fake.
COPA: I don't accept that you would have Satoshi's PGP keys. You then went to London?
CSW: I was there before and after.
COPA: When did you physically move?
CSW: My son started school in London before any of this. We had found a house, and I was transitioning. I was already a resident.
COPA: Do you recall this Baker and MacKenzie doc of an agreement?
CSW: YEs
COPA: So these things changed?
CSW: Rob changed a lot of things after the outing. Newco was mostly Rob. Sterling brokered the deal. Note my Wimbledon address.
COPA: So you entered into terms?
CSW: Yes
COPA: HEre's EITC Holdings Agreement. Real?
CSW: YEs
COPA: Your signature? and Stefans?
CSW: I agreed to be bound.
COPA: Is it you?
CSW: I agreed to have it signed.
COPA: By you?
CSW: I sent a message allowing it to be signed.
COPA: It didn't trouble you that someone else could sign?
CSW: No, I noted and approved it.
BREAK TIME.
CSW: YEs
COPA: So these things changed?
CSW: Rob changed a lot of things after the outing. Newco was mostly Rob. Sterling brokered the deal. Note my Wimbledon address.
COPA: So you entered into terms?
CSW: Yes
COPA: HEre's EITC Holdings Agreement. Real?
CSW: YEs
COPA: Your signature? and Stefans?
CSW: I agreed to be bound.
COPA: Is it you?
CSW: I agreed to have it signed.
COPA: By you?
CSW: I sent a message allowing it to be signed.
COPA: It didn't trouble you that someone else could sign?
CSW: No, I noted and approved it.
BREAK TIME.
COPA: This includes your entire life story here, yes?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Do you accept annex A is about the bitcoin system and work as Satoshi?
CSW: I do.
COPA: You received payment upfront and milestone payments would come?
CSW: Yes
COPA: And you would provide various services like recounting the story, taking coaching and working on marketing. You were committing to a major media exercise.
CSW: Yes and no. When I moved to the UK, Rob used the money as leverage. Now everything's tied up, I was given a choice to be shipped back broke or go along with Rob's plan.
COPA: So you didn't want this but was under pressure?
CSW: More than pressure. Witholding the money to the Aus money while he retained my IP. The things I cared about most.
COPA: Stefan signed this
CSW: He did.
COPA: did he know it was under duress?
CSW: He knew I wasn't happy, yes.
COPA: Shortly after, ATO ruled on C01N, Integys, and others?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: 30 million or more?
CSW: We didn't get money back. They were claims against future tax. Anything over 20 million doesn't get a payment, but a credit.
COPA: So they were disallowed?
CSW: every time I filed one of these, I had to fight them. I won them from 2001 until 2008. But 2009 is when it went into liquidation.
COPA: So you just gave up in 2015?
CSW: I didn't have a choice. Rob stopped funding, and I wasn't able to fight.
COPA: By 2016, you were in discussion with Stefan and Rob about providing proof you were Satoshi?
CSW: Not the same way they wanted. I wanted it to be about demonstrated knowledge like patents and other work. Rob had a deal with Silicon Valley to sell product - not anything I wanted but to go against my beliefs and prove it like a cypherpunk.
COPA: We'll come to that cover story soon.
CSW: I wanted to prove identity and then proof of keys. You can't prove identity by possession. You can prove possession, but look at the Dread Pirate Roberts Defense.
COPA: Stop there. You talk here about proof with Matonis. You weren't prepared to send bitcoin.
CSW: No public displays. I wanted secret, private, unknown.
COPA: then you had a session with Matonis?
CSW: He already knew who I was. Only then...
COPA: Arrangements were made for him to get Andresen or Hearn next?
CSW: I wasn't involved in that.
COPA: Stefan emails Jon Matonis about a media session in April. Did you know these were happening?
CSW: No. Those events also didn't happen because I was being difficult.
COPA: O'Hagan was asking for proof and not getting it.
CSW: I don't know. I wasn't involved in that.
COPA: If you had access to Satoshi account, that was the time?
CSW: I didn't give a rat's what he wanted.
COPA: He was contracted!
CSW: I was under duress. Rob was my least bad option, but I agreed to work 80-100 hours a week to work on inventions with a team. I didn't care about the rest. I had calls with Andresen. That's why he came out to England. He knew me from our relationship.
COPA: You recall this email forwarded from Stefan?
CSW: When was it from?
COPA: You recall this email from Andresen?
CSW: I don't
COPA: Other evidence would be emails or DMs and a technical convo with Gavin.
CSW: We discussed our private emails that nobody knows about and our work on specific patches that only we would know.
COPA: Gavin was wrong when he said it should be signed?
CSW: Just because it can be signed, doesn't mean it should be. Encryption keys shouldn't be signing keys. Vistomail was closed, so there's no key to sign with.
COPA: Your response was that you don't prove with these methods.
CSW: You prove by knowledge, just like Don Quixote's author proved himself by writing a second book.
COPA: You reject objectively verifiable method.
CSW: You're stating the opposite of British law and a thousand years back to Roman law. Your clients want an anonymous system.
COPA: You want to fake something.
CSW: Compromised emails aren't proof. The knowledge is proof. Nobody knows what me and Gavin worked on when I was Satoshi - except Gavin. Knowledge is proof.
COPA: Rob replied "we need to start trusting somebody!" and he wanted there to be some kind of signing session.
CSW: He wanted an anon system and kept moving the goal posts. I did an exercise where I signed for multiple people, that wasn't good enough. Then I did it for Gavin. Not good enough...
COPA: I appreciate you're desperate for Rob to be the villain, but you object that signing isn't proof that you control the keys.
CSW: It's proof of control not identity.
COPA: You said keys could be compromised.
CSW: I can give you a signed message to validate anywhere, but I can't control who has the message. For the ATO, they encrypted a file, and I decrypted it. My requirement was Gavin can know. But don't tell anyone.
COPA: Then you proceeded to undertake sessions with journalists with GQ, BBC and Economist?
CSW: Goalposts moved.
COPA: You agreed to these?!
CSW: No. The proof pack was meant to go out showing my history, my work, etc... Those weren't sent. I refused to sign because the rest of the structure was not done. I used an algo with the original keys.
COPA: He wants interviews on the 25th of April?
CSW: yes
COPA: He asks for PGP and early blocks, you see that?
CSW: I do.
COPA: You proposed to Rob you would do a signing session like you did with Jon and Gavin.
CSW: Not sign. I showed I could verify possession of early blocks. I agreed to a proper proof session with proof of the white paper, etc... I said "verify the early blocks." I can't use a key without proof. I won't budge on that.
COPA: You said a signature session.
CSW: No. I didn't say signature. Under UK law, it's required that the private key and identity is known first. It doesn't work that way.
COPA: From Stefan: proof in April session. He refers to the media partners being given docs and having messages signed, plus access to Matonis and Andresen. He hopes Trustee permissions will be in place and 3rd parties would send coins to Genesis and block 9. Did you respond you wouldn't move coin and signing is another thing.
CSW: If the proof session happened with the proof pack. that was the contingency.
COPA: Part of it was signing with keys.
CSW: No, you cannot by definition prove ID with a sig algo. It's in the white paper. It's firewalled, but doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
COPA: Dry run of proof sessions. You see this ?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Media sessions at the consultants' including signing messages on CW's blog.
CSW: I see that.
COPA: So you would sign on your blog?
CSW: that was Rob's new goalpost plan.
COPA: You responded, but didn't say you absolutely wouldn't do it, did you?
CSW: I don't recall.
CSW: Yes
COPA: Do you accept annex A is about the bitcoin system and work as Satoshi?
CSW: I do.
COPA: You received payment upfront and milestone payments would come?
CSW: Yes
COPA: And you would provide various services like recounting the story, taking coaching and working on marketing. You were committing to a major media exercise.
CSW: Yes and no. When I moved to the UK, Rob used the money as leverage. Now everything's tied up, I was given a choice to be shipped back broke or go along with Rob's plan.
COPA: So you didn't want this but was under pressure?
CSW: More than pressure. Witholding the money to the Aus money while he retained my IP. The things I cared about most.
COPA: Stefan signed this
CSW: He did.
COPA: did he know it was under duress?
CSW: He knew I wasn't happy, yes.
COPA: Shortly after, ATO ruled on C01N, Integys, and others?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: 30 million or more?
CSW: We didn't get money back. They were claims against future tax. Anything over 20 million doesn't get a payment, but a credit.
COPA: So they were disallowed?
CSW: every time I filed one of these, I had to fight them. I won them from 2001 until 2008. But 2009 is when it went into liquidation.
COPA: So you just gave up in 2015?
CSW: I didn't have a choice. Rob stopped funding, and I wasn't able to fight.
COPA: By 2016, you were in discussion with Stefan and Rob about providing proof you were Satoshi?
CSW: Not the same way they wanted. I wanted it to be about demonstrated knowledge like patents and other work. Rob had a deal with Silicon Valley to sell product - not anything I wanted but to go against my beliefs and prove it like a cypherpunk.
COPA: We'll come to that cover story soon.
CSW: I wanted to prove identity and then proof of keys. You can't prove identity by possession. You can prove possession, but look at the Dread Pirate Roberts Defense.
COPA: Stop there. You talk here about proof with Matonis. You weren't prepared to send bitcoin.
CSW: No public displays. I wanted secret, private, unknown.
COPA: then you had a session with Matonis?
CSW: He already knew who I was. Only then...
COPA: Arrangements were made for him to get Andresen or Hearn next?
CSW: I wasn't involved in that.
COPA: Stefan emails Jon Matonis about a media session in April. Did you know these were happening?
CSW: No. Those events also didn't happen because I was being difficult.
COPA: O'Hagan was asking for proof and not getting it.
CSW: I don't know. I wasn't involved in that.
COPA: If you had access to Satoshi account, that was the time?
CSW: I didn't give a rat's what he wanted.
COPA: He was contracted!
CSW: I was under duress. Rob was my least bad option, but I agreed to work 80-100 hours a week to work on inventions with a team. I didn't care about the rest. I had calls with Andresen. That's why he came out to England. He knew me from our relationship.
COPA: You recall this email forwarded from Stefan?
CSW: When was it from?
COPA: You recall this email from Andresen?
CSW: I don't
COPA: Other evidence would be emails or DMs and a technical convo with Gavin.
CSW: We discussed our private emails that nobody knows about and our work on specific patches that only we would know.
COPA: Gavin was wrong when he said it should be signed?
CSW: Just because it can be signed, doesn't mean it should be. Encryption keys shouldn't be signing keys. Vistomail was closed, so there's no key to sign with.
COPA: Your response was that you don't prove with these methods.
CSW: You prove by knowledge, just like Don Quixote's author proved himself by writing a second book.
COPA: You reject objectively verifiable method.
CSW: You're stating the opposite of British law and a thousand years back to Roman law. Your clients want an anonymous system.
COPA: You want to fake something.
CSW: Compromised emails aren't proof. The knowledge is proof. Nobody knows what me and Gavin worked on when I was Satoshi - except Gavin. Knowledge is proof.
COPA: Rob replied "we need to start trusting somebody!" and he wanted there to be some kind of signing session.
CSW: He wanted an anon system and kept moving the goal posts. I did an exercise where I signed for multiple people, that wasn't good enough. Then I did it for Gavin. Not good enough...
COPA: I appreciate you're desperate for Rob to be the villain, but you object that signing isn't proof that you control the keys.
CSW: It's proof of control not identity.
COPA: You said keys could be compromised.
CSW: I can give you a signed message to validate anywhere, but I can't control who has the message. For the ATO, they encrypted a file, and I decrypted it. My requirement was Gavin can know. But don't tell anyone.
COPA: Then you proceeded to undertake sessions with journalists with GQ, BBC and Economist?
CSW: Goalposts moved.
COPA: You agreed to these?!
CSW: No. The proof pack was meant to go out showing my history, my work, etc... Those weren't sent. I refused to sign because the rest of the structure was not done. I used an algo with the original keys.
COPA: He wants interviews on the 25th of April?
CSW: yes
COPA: He asks for PGP and early blocks, you see that?
CSW: I do.
COPA: You proposed to Rob you would do a signing session like you did with Jon and Gavin.
CSW: Not sign. I showed I could verify possession of early blocks. I agreed to a proper proof session with proof of the white paper, etc... I said "verify the early blocks." I can't use a key without proof. I won't budge on that.
COPA: You said a signature session.
CSW: No. I didn't say signature. Under UK law, it's required that the private key and identity is known first. It doesn't work that way.
COPA: From Stefan: proof in April session. He refers to the media partners being given docs and having messages signed, plus access to Matonis and Andresen. He hopes Trustee permissions will be in place and 3rd parties would send coins to Genesis and block 9. Did you respond you wouldn't move coin and signing is another thing.
CSW: If the proof session happened with the proof pack. that was the contingency.
COPA: Part of it was signing with keys.
CSW: No, you cannot by definition prove ID with a sig algo. It's in the white paper. It's firewalled, but doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
COPA: Dry run of proof sessions. You see this ?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Media sessions at the consultants' including signing messages on CW's blog.
CSW: I see that.
COPA: So you would sign on your blog?
CSW: that was Rob's new goalpost plan.
COPA: You responded, but didn't say you absolutely wouldn't do it, did you?
CSW: I don't recall.
COPA: All these people were under the impression you were going along with it.
CSW: No. I was being very difficult. You know I was swearing at everyone instead. [Remember the GQ bit]
COPA: Let's play audio. Maybe a problem with audio. [lol he's bringing in GQ evidence] He was a cryptographer.
CSW: No, he was a fraud claiming he could break cryptographic keys with no evidence that he ever did it.
COPA: He was saying he could derive private keys from public.
CSW: He was saying bitcoin was broke due to that reverse engineering of keys, which is nonsense. You can't harvest private keys. He said his team harvested hundreds or thousands of private key.
COPA: Playing more [I CANT HEAR]
COPA: Satoshi transfered coins to Nick Bome. But you didnt know that, did you?
CSW: Of course, but I don't remember names.
COPA: You're saying the keys could have been compromised and so you won't sign.
CSW: No. My system is the most secure system ever created. His technobabble was fake. No proof and total fraud! It's offensive and disgusting!
COPA: You can't remember anyone who you sent coins to who aren't in the public domain?
CSW: No
Mellor: Not one?
CSW: Most didn't use real names anyways.
CSW: No. I was being very difficult. You know I was swearing at everyone instead. [Remember the GQ bit]
COPA: Let's play audio. Maybe a problem with audio. [lol he's bringing in GQ evidence] He was a cryptographer.
CSW: No, he was a fraud claiming he could break cryptographic keys with no evidence that he ever did it.
COPA: He was saying he could derive private keys from public.
CSW: He was saying bitcoin was broke due to that reverse engineering of keys, which is nonsense. You can't harvest private keys. He said his team harvested hundreds or thousands of private key.
COPA: Playing more [I CANT HEAR]
COPA: Satoshi transfered coins to Nick Bome. But you didnt know that, did you?
CSW: Of course, but I don't remember names.
COPA: You're saying the keys could have been compromised and so you won't sign.
CSW: No. My system is the most secure system ever created. His technobabble was fake. No proof and total fraud! It's offensive and disgusting!
COPA: You can't remember anyone who you sent coins to who aren't in the public domain?
CSW: No
Mellor: Not one?
CSW: Most didn't use real names anyways.
COPA: Did you receive this email about times for signing. It's clear that what was envisaged was you signing a new message on your blog using the private key from block 9.
CSW: I agreed to a proof pack where journalists would see that I am Satoshi from my work, and only then would I sign.
COPA: Whatever else happened, a blog would go live bearing a signature by you using the private key from block 9.
CSW: that's what they wanted. But I wanted the proof back with my patents.
COPA: Did you say you wouldn't produce a blog of that kind?
CSW: Yes, In person with lots of yelling a swearing
COPA: Does this look like your message?
CSW: Maybe
COPA: You describe a process of signing and verifying a signature.
CSW: No, I explain in incredible depth who I can do it in command line. It explains how signing Sartre is different than Sartre, Nobel Prize Winner. If you didn't read the letter - and I'm sure you didn't - you'd see I was rebelling against anything that doesn't include my proof pack just like he wouldn't accept the prize. You don't get it because you don't get it.
COPA: You're definitely not signing with a real key here.
CSW: It's not the same if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi. Read Sartre. It's the same quote paraphrased. I have turned down the prize. I have the right to say "NO."
COPA: So this blog is definitely not proof? It's a rebuke to people who want proof?
CSW: It's the first step of revealing what I want to reveal.
COPA: [reading from the Satre post in the blog about how signing works] You were directly comparing this with the signing exercises with Andresen, right?
CSW: I'm explaining how I can do it and what the real proof process needs to look like.
COPA: [reading more]
CSW: Any developer would check quickly, and they did. They saw what it meant quickly.
COPA: It took some time though.
CSW: No, this key was published on BitcoinTalk. Maxwell, Wuille and others had posted about this key. It was known, and they all knew it.
COPA: You said you could have signed in Electrum, but you're known for being difficult.
CSW: I said I COULD HAVE, but the problem was there was no proof pack, so I won't.
COPA: If you had the private keys, you COULD have produced a signature?
CSW: a message digest if I had proven ID. you can't prove ID. It's a one way function against the law of what that even means.
COPA: But no technical security problem with putting a new message on your blog signed with your key.
CSW: It would have been the biggest lie in human history and removed the identity defined in the white paper. It would undermine my life's work.
Mellor: PAUSE. Lady in the back, please stop nodding in agreement or you'll be removed. Sit still!
COPA: Your own team wanted this.
CSW: I didn't have a team. I had Rob trying to SELL ME packaged as cypherpunk hero for which he'd get a billion dollars, put me in a hoodie and give me crumbs.
COPA: Signing doesn't cause a security risk though, right?
CSW: No, not if I had it on another machine.
COPA: It wouldn't risk your key getting stolen?
CSW: The security risk is the security of my work, undermining the value of what I have created. The key isn't at risk. My life's work is. the purpose is ID. Your team want my privacy removed.
COPA: Sartre post was 2 May 2016.
CSW: I think so
COPA: "If I sign Craig Wright, it's not the sam..." It includes the Open SSL key verification from the draft.
CSW: Parts are taken out.
COPA: The same signed message is from a publicly available Satoshi signature.
CSW: Rob put it down that way.
COPA: Would your version have not disappointed everyone?
CSW: The argument was already that I would have stolen the keys. "even if he has them, they are stolen."
COPA: Reality is that proof of possession would fail in either your draft or the published version.
CSW: I promised if there was a proof pack with my patents and work, I would have signed.
COPA: Andresen evidence from Kleiman, he says the Sartre post wasn't what I expected with a simple key. Instead it was a wacky technical thing that proved nothing. You're aware this was his reaction?
CSW: Yes.
CALL IT A DAY. END.
CSW: I agreed to a proof pack where journalists would see that I am Satoshi from my work, and only then would I sign.
COPA: Whatever else happened, a blog would go live bearing a signature by you using the private key from block 9.
CSW: that's what they wanted. But I wanted the proof back with my patents.
COPA: Did you say you wouldn't produce a blog of that kind?
CSW: Yes, In person with lots of yelling a swearing
COPA: Does this look like your message?
CSW: Maybe
COPA: You describe a process of signing and verifying a signature.
CSW: No, I explain in incredible depth who I can do it in command line. It explains how signing Sartre is different than Sartre, Nobel Prize Winner. If you didn't read the letter - and I'm sure you didn't - you'd see I was rebelling against anything that doesn't include my proof pack just like he wouldn't accept the prize. You don't get it because you don't get it.
COPA: You're definitely not signing with a real key here.
CSW: It's not the same if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi. Read Sartre. It's the same quote paraphrased. I have turned down the prize. I have the right to say "NO."
COPA: So this blog is definitely not proof? It's a rebuke to people who want proof?
CSW: It's the first step of revealing what I want to reveal.
COPA: [reading from the Satre post in the blog about how signing works] You were directly comparing this with the signing exercises with Andresen, right?
CSW: I'm explaining how I can do it and what the real proof process needs to look like.
COPA: [reading more]
CSW: Any developer would check quickly, and they did. They saw what it meant quickly.
COPA: It took some time though.
CSW: No, this key was published on BitcoinTalk. Maxwell, Wuille and others had posted about this key. It was known, and they all knew it.
COPA: You said you could have signed in Electrum, but you're known for being difficult.
CSW: I said I COULD HAVE, but the problem was there was no proof pack, so I won't.
COPA: If you had the private keys, you COULD have produced a signature?
CSW: a message digest if I had proven ID. you can't prove ID. It's a one way function against the law of what that even means.
COPA: But no technical security problem with putting a new message on your blog signed with your key.
CSW: It would have been the biggest lie in human history and removed the identity defined in the white paper. It would undermine my life's work.
Mellor: PAUSE. Lady in the back, please stop nodding in agreement or you'll be removed. Sit still!
COPA: Your own team wanted this.
CSW: I didn't have a team. I had Rob trying to SELL ME packaged as cypherpunk hero for which he'd get a billion dollars, put me in a hoodie and give me crumbs.
COPA: Signing doesn't cause a security risk though, right?
CSW: No, not if I had it on another machine.
COPA: It wouldn't risk your key getting stolen?
CSW: The security risk is the security of my work, undermining the value of what I have created. The key isn't at risk. My life's work is. the purpose is ID. Your team want my privacy removed.
COPA: Sartre post was 2 May 2016.
CSW: I think so
COPA: "If I sign Craig Wright, it's not the sam..." It includes the Open SSL key verification from the draft.
CSW: Parts are taken out.
COPA: The same signed message is from a publicly available Satoshi signature.
CSW: Rob put it down that way.
COPA: Would your version have not disappointed everyone?
CSW: The argument was already that I would have stolen the keys. "even if he has them, they are stolen."
COPA: Reality is that proof of possession would fail in either your draft or the published version.
CSW: I promised if there was a proof pack with my patents and work, I would have signed.
COPA: Andresen evidence from Kleiman, he says the Sartre post wasn't what I expected with a simple key. Instead it was a wacky technical thing that proved nothing. You're aware this was his reaction?
CSW: Yes.
CALL IT A DAY. END.
Here's my summary video for subscribers!
https://x.com/kurtwuckertjr/status/1757444303461216420?s=20
Thanks to everyone for your support! I've been getting up at 4:30 or 5AM to make sure I don't miss a beat in my reporting.
BSV tips to $Kurt on handcash or fiat tips via my Amazon wish list are a huge blessing. Thank you for being friends and fans!
amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls…
BSV tips to $Kurt on handcash or fiat tips via my Amazon wish list are a huge blessing. Thank you for being friends and fans!
amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
