Thread by @bitnorbert

COPA v Wright, the identity issue – Day 8. 🧵

Good morning! It's Wright's final day in the witness box – except for an extra round later due to the new evidence admitted on Day 1. I expect COPA to finish, and hand the proverbial baton over to the Devs, lead by Alexander Gunning KC. If there is time, which I expect there to be, we will switch to cross-examination of Wright's fact witnesses. I don't know who that would be today, so let's see.

When this post is 2.5 hours old, at 10:30, court will be in session.

As always, you can tip me for my work at [e-mail] or with this QR code. Your generosity has helped cover much of the costs I've had in doing this. Thank you so much!

No line outside today. Where is everybody?

I'm in my usual seat. The AV guys are testing video conferencing, perhaps related to cross-examination of fact witnesses?

I'm here with @BitMEXResearch, remember to follow his reporting!

More reporters to follow.

https://twitter.com/WhatTheFinance9/status/1757710627311587393

Here's Wright now. Grey suit, red shirt with a red tie, red socks in brown shoes. He takes to the witness box.

@BitMEXResearch performs the honorable task of switching off the big noisy fan. The room is silent as we wait for Mellor to enter.

We are in session.

Orr: [addresses redactions] We have checked redactions, and they reflect the claims to privilege. Stroz Friedberg has checked further redactions, also reflect privilege. Certain redactions were in error, corrections have been provided to the other party. A letter has been sent to Bird & Bird [provides a copy to the judge]. Won't go through details while Wright is in witness box. [references redacted text] I won't read it out in open court. We discussed Hough and Gunning about taking instructions from Wright. The letter was only sent this morning. On Wright concluding his evidence, we ask him to be released so we can take instruction from him.

Mellor: Hough, any objections to that?
C: No.
Gunning: We don't have objections either. The letter was in response to us, doesn't respond to the particular question.
Orr: We were not in a position to answer it without further instruction from Wright.
Mellor: Good morning, Dr Wright.
W: Good morning, My Lord.

C: About emails. You said you didn't write an email from that domain in 2015. You said "I'm not Tyche, never have been". [opens doc, implementation deal] You admitted this was genuine. It's signed by you, your wife and Matthews. [quotes doc, salary etc] Do you say this part is wrong?
W: I do, there was never any [missed]. It was approximately 500 pages in total, 100 different documents to sign for all the IP, I had no solicitors, no chance to read them. I looked at them quickly.
C: So you say you signed, including the term [something Craig Wright]
W: The email you brought up yesterday say we were ready to start a family. We were in our forties. My Lord, it was well known that we were not looking to have more children.tyche.co.uk

C: Is that your signature?
W: Actually, no, it's not. Plenty of fakes of my signature, that's definitely one of them.
C: So it was not signed by you, just an apparent signature?
W: I wasn't living at that address, but many people thought so.
C: So this employment contract apparently bearing your signature is not one of the 100s of docs you signed that day.
W: [explains how the signature doesn't match him]
C: Yet another doc you identified as fake which was not identified as fake when it was disclosed?
W: No, it's listed as coming from a staff laptop, a staff member accessed Ramona's email
C: Your solicitors did not identify the correspondence as fake.
W: I told them it's from an unauthorized source.

C: [shows email, MacGregor and Matthews, Sept 2015] Making arrangements for you being Chief Scientist, Tyche.
W: I see a job title, not Tyche. I was given a job at nCrypt.
C: [quotes HR manager, "I need a job title"]
W: Tyche has consulting. It was the first 3 years of nTrust, we didn't have HR. Tyche ran the HR, payroll and accounting for nCrypt.
C: All evidence shows you were employed by Tyche until 2016.
W: No actually, it was put in disclosure, only nCrypt or nChain. All of my tax filings are from a single company. My visa was for nCrypt.

C: Sartre message and aftermath. That morning, articles about your being Satoshi was posted by BBC, The Economist and GQ. They said you would demonstrate block 9.
W: No, my wife and I was on the Eurostar from Paris. This happened as I was coming back to the country, it's verifiable because passport…
C: The [agenda] made clear they were going to be released that morning.
W: No, [missed]
W: I've seen those emails, don't know if they were real or not.
C: Are you aware the articles said you would demonstrate [block 9]?
W: No, I didn't read them.
C: Posts from others discredited the articles.
W: I never provided any cryptographic…
C: Were you aware there was such an article?
W: [signing is not identity]
C: People claimed to discredit it, saying no new message. Not aware?
W: I didn't read it. I don't use Reddit.
C: After all these years, you don't even know the posts appeared saying it's a fake proof? Not even now?
W: I have hearsay. Do I read them? No. People tell me what to do. My Lord, it's why I do degrees.

C: Stop there [shows email, MacGregor to Ayre and Wright, "it's falling apart"] Do you recall?
W: Not particularly, I don't have a good recall of the period.
C: Ayre asks how it could fall apart, and you say the wrong copy was uploaded.
W: nChain was run by Tyche, my email had been taken over.
C: This is another email chain you reviewed when preparing witness statement, one of not very many. You didn't identify it as fake.
W: No, I have no need to. I've noted they came from third-party computers. It's very clear it comes from a compromised staff computer.
C: You refer to disclosure platform, it's privileged information.
W: You say I cannot answer. I filled out information, I can't answer for my solicitors…
C: There is nowhere where you identify it as fake.
W: Yes, I [wouldn't have relied on it if it wasn't?]
C: All is fake?
W: Everything coming from staff computers is unreliable.

C: For all your primary reliance docs that are from […], they are unreliable?
W: No, this is part of the story. I rely on them to say third parties have modified my docs. The story includes rogue ex-staff members.
C: Matthews has acknowledged this email chain in his witness statement.
W: At the time he didn't realize that Robert had taken over my account.
C: "The wrong copy was uploaded" was wrong.
W: No, the problem was I wasn't going to sign without proof of identity.
C: You agree whoever wrote that was giving a false excuse.
W: I don't know what they were trying to do. Robert told me there's no way anyone will believe you unless you do it my way. My Lord, can I finish this?
Mellor: Go ahead.
W: Robert said he would destroy my family, I had a suicide attempt. I had been tricked into things. I was forced to do things I didn't believe. I would have happily signed if and only if the whole purpose was to prove my […] first.

C: Attachment in email chain. Draft blog post proposing a new message signed with private keys for genesis block and block 9. Do you receive this?
W: Not by email. MacGregor threatened me at lunch. He said our children are now in this country, he's pulled all the funding for my Australian companies…
C: Stop you there. [repeats question]
W: I did not [receive it]

C: [shows email from Matthews to Andresen] He writes you've agreed to sign, you'll be offline while traveling. Was he telling the truth?
W: I made an agreement that if and only if the proof of my [papers etc] was done, 14 degrees, 1000s of patent ideas, if you make that public, I will do this.
C: [shows Andresen email from Kleiman proceedings] You gave that commitment.
W: No. I was on Eurostar, I'd lost control of the email. Rob used this. He said he had told Gavin you'll do it and you'll look like a complete fool if you don't.
C: So it's another fake email.
W: It's a real email, from someone else.

C: [shows email exchange between Wright and Andresen] You're quoted saying "we fucked up, loaded wrong post". You wrote this?
W: No. This is from a third-party laptop.
C: [shows email from MacGregor to Wright, Ramona, Matthews] That was real?
W: I don't know. Didn't control the email account anymore.
C: Do you agree the message is precisely the message MacGregor wanted that evening?
W: Yes, he had a billion dollar deal, sounding a bit like Austin Powers. I had to be a cypherpunk then for certain Silicon Valley companies…
C: You're digressing It would be strange for him to deliver a real message to an address that wasn't you?
W: He said it's going to be evidence that I'm on board with it. By deciding just to be Chief Scientist, I handed over all the IT systems to Robert. Then other people got to control what I do.

Mellor: You wife had access to this email account?
W: I don't know. She was set up with one, but it's not going to the rcbdr (sp) email, My Lord.
C: [quotes email] Is the message Ramona delivered consistent with what you intended?
W: No, and not consistent with what she would say. She wouldn't go behind my back.
C: All these emails we're going through, they were all emails from somebody else who had taken over the account?
W: I wasn't running it.
C: It wasn't something Matthews spotted at the time?
W: No, he trusted Robert. It's amazing what people will do for a billion dollars.
C: But he was spending time with you?
W: He came over, I don't recall.
C: Matthews were sending him fake messages, even if he was spending time with you?
W: I just came back from Paris.
C: It was a high-risk strategy on your account for MacGregor to send fake emails to someone who would spend time with you the following days?
W: No, I called him, I don't think Robert wanted him to be there. He was incredibly angry later, yelled and screamed at me and my wife.

C: [shows email from MacGregor] You say you weren't en route at the time?
W: My memory of that period is very fuzzy.
C: You say performing a public signature process would destroy your life's work, would be selling out bitcoin to the cypherpunk philosophy. You had already engaged with journalist, signed new messages?
W: I used the key to prove possession. It's not a signature.
C: You used the key.
W: Yes, under the assumptions they would have had all the information.
C: You understood those journalists would public articles.
W: No, they were going to analyze all my information. People said my qualifications were fake, I wanted that cleared up.
C: You were happy you had proved possession.
W: Do you recall the video yesterday? I was very angry, swore a lot. Doesn't sound like a happy person.

C: I'm not disputing you were under stress. You agreed for articles to come out reporting you had carried out proof of possession.
W: No, that was Robert's idea. I was happy to prove identity.
C: And the reason you failed to perform a public signing was that you couldn't.
W: Actually I could. But then I'm not going to have anyone ever looking at what I've done.

C: [shows email saying coin will be moved] You say that's not written by you?
W: Definitely. I told everyone I'm not moving coin.
C: [shows email from MacGregor] Attached is a blog post. Is this another email that didn't reach you?
W: I had no urgency. This is an email to nCrypt where I had lost control of that account.
C: [shows attachment, "extraordinary proof", PGP key, transferring bitcoin] Is that a draft blog post you saw on May 3?
W: I saw it at my house when it was shown to me. I said a four-letter word that starts with "C".
C: Is the email a fake?
W: Not fake, but I didn't control the email.

C: [shows docs referred to in Wright1] Your wife replies to MacGregor about blog post, "OK Satoshi, your writing is impressive". Did she wrote the email?
W: I know she wrote [something], it doesn't sound like my wife.
C: These are a series of emails you must have seen the significance of. You didn't say anything that they shouldn't be taken on their face value.
W: They are important, they show why I was forced and had a suicide attempt.
C: You don't say anything about [fake]
W: I don't know who did it. I know emails were sent to put me in a position where Gavin would say "why would you do this" and "if you send bitcoin to this address, Craig will send them back".

C: [shows email from MacGregor, "PGP key?"] Asking if you have the slices yet, you say you will chase them soon. You say it's not real?
W: Oh, yes. If you read this, it makes it hard to believe it could be my story. The slices don't disappear, I don't need to get them repeatedly.
C: This is about the PGP key.
W: I told you that's not a signing key. This is talking about key slices.
C: To get access to a PGP key.
W: No, that was an AES key, it unlocked the drive. Then I had everything.

C: [shows email] It goes on with you denying you had signed anything with the PGP key, slice from Mayaka but not Savannah.
W: While Savannah and Denis ran Seychelles company, Rob didn't know Denis lived in Kenya. That part is an error.
C: I'm not suggesting for a moment these were real key slices. But these were email MacGregor wrote, copying Matthews in, and you responded.
W: No, I'd had my access revoked. Everything was set up so people thought I would sign publicly.

[tech error, lost message]

W: This is not the earliest key. Martti had received it as an encryption key.
W: The "bitcoin community" is a misrepresentation…
C: [quotes] That's the key we just looked at.
W: That's the key that was loaded. The key used for Gavin, Martti and others wasn't a signing key.
C: you're not answering the question. There was public discussion of 2011 key. Are you referring to this key, or a completely different one?
W: Do you understand that private and public keys are separate? It's answering about a private key.
Mellor: Will you answer the queston.
W: Yes. PGP allows updates…
Mellor: No, the question was whether [you refer to this key]
W: [missed]
W: I was saying difference between signing and encryption key. Encryption key is related. The private key would be the same. But you can update the algorithm.

C: You say the key was created by unknown people, therefore no value in proving Satoshi.
W: It was a server key.
C: The PGP key associated with Satoshi from 2011 if not before, was nothing to do with Satoshi?
W: No actually, incorrect. As I've explained, My Lord, [technobabble] I don't have the key for it, Vistamail is shut down. I sent it privately to only a few people.

C: [shows email from Malmi to Satoshi] He's asking Satoshi to ask their PGP key. Is it genuine?
W: Yes.
C: Here Satoshi responds from gmx account, providing the key.
W: I see the encryption/decryption key being sent.
C: It's the same as the one hosted on bitcoin dot org from 2011.
W: What I'll note…
C: Is it the same?
W: Martti loaded it.
C: But [exasperated] I asked if it's the same.
W: Once again, Martti loaded it in 2011, yes.

C: [shows email, "here's my public key"] In July 2010, Satoshi was informing people the public key had been up since 2008.
W: Not that one, no.
C: [shows Wright4] You write that the reference was to the PGP encryption key at the Wayback capture. You just denied it.
W: No, look at the first sentence, I say I'm not understanding what you're asking. I said it was a key I privately sent to Gavin, Martti and others, not the same key.
C: That's wrong. As you know, Madden has authenticated that the key was the first uploaded in 2008.
W: No, he has given a link to 2011, a bit dishonest.
C: He's identified metadata showing October 2008.
W: No, actually he hasn't. He's making an untrue statement. The metadata, you stated there is no forensic evidence. Yet Madden says there's metadata in this text file.
C: So you disagree with experts.
W: If there was evidence, he could easily show it.

C: [shows output of the key] You see the UID given is satoshi at gmx dot com. That address is embedded in the key. Your assertion that it could only be used on Vistamail is wrong.
W: No. You can put any email you want. In Vistamail you could put any email you want. That's not metadata saying when it was setup. Maxwell used it as an argument against me, now presented by Madden. They say when I did it it false, but when Satoshi did it, it's real.
Mellor: Who says [missed]
W: I set it back to when the project started. I do this sort of thing all the time. You can change the algorithm etc.

C: Do you accept it can be used both for signing and encryption?
W: It's bad practice.
C: It shows this key could be used for both.
W: Satoshi would know not to do that, bad practice.
C: Before we assume you have no answer, do you accept this key has always had the function of encryption and signing?
W: Always, no. With PGP you can update items, add or remove algorithms any time. I can add a new algorithm because one has been compromised.
C: The story about backdating you haven't said in your witness statement.
W: No, that's incorrect. I noted you can update, Gavin etc, I've said that multiple times.

Five minutes.

Back.

C: You said the public key was not hosted on the bitcoin website before 2011.
W: I said it was changed.
C: [shows email] Satoshi wrote "it's also at [bitcoin dot org]"
W: The version I had was slightly different. They have the same private key, but they are updated.
C: This public key block is identical to the 2008 Wayback capture, and Satoshi said it was from 2008.
W: No, you misunderstand how it works. I can update all the algorithms. Anything sent with this key would work with my private key on the server.
C: Madden took the metadata from the server.
W: No, from Wayback. A robots.txt file excluded it. That's why everything but that was captured. Why I don't know.
C: Satoshi's email, metadata, post, all say the key has been available from 2010 and earlier. You are just denying plan fact.
W: No, I'm not. Maxwell and keys that I had say it can be updated.

C: [shows email] MacGregor is pressing for a move, genesis block signature. Those were all real ideas he put forward. It also copies you at .
W: It's a different email. At this point I was getting these ones but not the others.
C: You're saying you were desperately trying to get in touch with Savannah. Previously denied.
W: I don't recall.
C: You've accepted this email was genuine.
W: I said they were found on a staff laptop. Both my mail and Ramona's were on that laptop, shouldn't have had access.
C: You don't say [Ramona should be copied, missed]
W: I don't recall.rcjbr.org

C: [email from Matthews] This never reached you?
W: The one from Stefan didn't.
C: Another email that never got through to you.
W: I didn't have that email.
C: All these emails, and it never came out that [someone was emailing as you]
W: I'm not good with people. I thought Matthews was acting [real], I didn't understand what was going on. He didn't have reason to believe the emails weren't from me. He was doing things that were strange.
C: High-risk strategy for MacGregor to send email as you.
W: I don't know if he did. They came from a compromised machine. Only filed because the Kleiman case required employee laptops to be imaged.
C: These don't feature among your reliance docs
W: I don't know …
C: Don't tell us anything privileged.

C: [shows email from MacGregor about Matonis] Again a message that didn't get through?
W: Emails were sent while I was unconscious in hospital.
Mellor: [see if we have any emails while you were unconscious?]
C: [shows email] Also didn't get through to you?
W: No, I didn't have nCrypt [email] at the time.
C: Arrangements were being made for Andresen etc to transfer bitcoin to early blocks, aware?
W: I found out after the event.
C: Matthews were making those arrangements?
W: Don't know.
C: [shows email showing it] Have you seen it?
W: Possibly, I haven't [checked]
C: You had a phonecall with Andresen discussing moving coin?
W: I don't recall.
C: Matthews said it was on speaker.
W: I don't recall.
C: Then you don't recall what you wanted to get across to Andresen?
W: No.
C: Matthews said you were looking for an excuse, imperfections in early code. Something you might have said?
W: I can be vague, I don't know.

C: I'm going to pass over the events where you cut yourself. Back to the signing sessions. You describe the setup for the sessions, "procure Bitcoin Core software" etc. You accepted in Wright9 you didn't need to install that because early blocks contained full keys.
W: You need the software to do it, it validates it as real, shows you haven't modified the software. If you have modified it, the blockchain will come up with errors.
C: You can agree that the coin generation for early blocks contained full public keys, so you didn't need the software.
W: No, the arguments about changing signing algorithm etc. If you download the software, by verifying the blockchain, means it hadn't changed the algorithm. The rest would have different hashes. By having full blockchain, I demonstrated that the software was correct and that the keys were used.

C: You said you didn't download the entire blockchain, not necessary.
W: No. If someone doesn't trust the software, you can download the whole blockchain, will come up with different hash. By downloading blockchain, I've shown the software is correct.
C: You say you transferred signature and message from Windows to Linux VM, essential for the integrity.
W: I'm demonstrating on one, now I can show the hashes etc, have validated all the keys etc.
C: Professor M said it wasn't necessary.
W: No, incorrect. As "BTC Core" notes on their website, all the devs have noted that downloading the blockchain is a way to validate this. They said you must have a full node, so I did the full process. Professor M has stated downloading the blockchain is better. I can bring up the references…

C: You mentioned [missed]
W: Where it says block 9, that's not the full text. Sartre.txt references where it [came from]
C: So you're not saying what the message was.
W: I don't recall, it's been a number of years.
C: [missed]
W: BBC filmed it, but lost the footage. They have some edited film, but Rory said we didn't keep it all, we lost it. Suits their purpose.
C: They are also conspiring against you?
W: Rory is very pro-BTC, he wants cypherpunk.
C: A highly respected journalist.
W: He's incredibly biased. 98.9% of transactions on bitcoin are done on BSV.

C: This just tells the program to […] It would be easy to […] at a random string, isn't it?
W: No, I validated the hash, I showed them the blockchain.
W: There was a camera in the BBC. You will notice they are viewing my screen, both sides. They had the footage, now they don't.

C: Professor M says it would be simple to have bitcoin-cli point to a [fake program?]
W: No, when I sat with the journalist I explained all of this to him. I validated it online, showed how that works in Linux. You could argue I set up an entire infrastructure at a fake RedHat site, but that would be incredibly difficult. I put the full path, validated the software using the Linux command-line. If I had changed anything, it would be corrected.
C: All these stages are just your assertions.
W: No, actually, I went through even more with Gavin…
C: The journalist and Matonis. Just your assertion without evidence.
W: No, Stefan was in the room for some of it.
C: He doesn't go through these commands in evidence. You have no evidence.
W: He has a public blog. On top of that, Matthews will be in court, you can ask him. There are video fragments, you can note from the BBC that they did video my screen.
C: You could have adopted a more reliable process, putting signature and message on a fresh USB stick to have it verified by someone who understands Bitcoin.
W: I DID actually, with Gavin. Gavin supplied the USB stick, My Lord.
C: On their own computer.
W: It was a brand new computer.

C: You could have adopted the simple approach [repeats]
W: No actually. I wanted control over what happened. I had stated categorically I want to control the process, prove things first.
C: The journalists were supposed to report you doing this.
W: No. Their job was to look at [all patents etc] first. That was their job. Journalism isn't just running blogs.
C: Andresen session. He had just come off a red-eye flight and was on his own account exhausted.
W: He seemed very excited.
C: He had a USB stick. He expected you to put a signature on it.
W: I don't know, I said categorically what I would do.
C: Matthews says Andresen possibly suggested verifying on his own laptop, and you objected?
W: I said that if he used his laptop, I wouldn't let him take it home.
C: Another laptop was procured and brought into the room.
W: I'm not sure whose idea it was.
C: The signing session took some hours?
W: No, the session was quick. What took time was setting up laptop etc. Sometimes he was on the laptop, sometimes I was.

C: You said in Hodlonaut that a mobile hotspot or WiFI might have been used.
W: I don't know which it was.
C: You said Gavin downloaded Electrum.
W: Who downloaded each bit I'm not sure. I do know, My Lord, either I was typing with Gavin looking, or vice versa.
C: [shows witness statement] He downloaded the software. You are very categorical here, but less sure now.
W: I do believe he did, but there was multiple [bits of] software.
C: Gavin was very clear that you chose it.
W: We were going over the options. I was using "BTC Core" and that was the easiest option.
C: In Kleiman, you said you did not check TLS.
W: The browser checks it, it's been hidden in modern browsers. In 2016 it was a main function, green lock. That has been depreciated, but at the time it was part of the program.

C: That function operated in relation to Electrum?
W: Yes, they had signed up for secure certificates.
C: GitHub?
W: It's connected to the Electrum site. I don't know which […]
C: You can't remember?
W: We went to the Electrum site. It has a main download, but also link to GitHub. I don't recall whether I downloaded clicking the one click, or whether we chose the GitHub full version.
C: You said Gavin compared the hash value.
W: I believe so, uyes.
C: That's wrong, isn't it.
W: I recall having gone through validation.
C: Gavin was asked in Kleiman, and said he hadn't.
W: I hadn't done the PGP validation, but the download was verified.

C: You said you produced a signature and put it on the USB stick. You say he performed the verification. In fact, as Andresen told the court in Kleiman, you performed the verification.
W: No, I copied and pasted the signed value, the message I read out. It was first incorrect. We corrected it in the tool. Even one character out…
C: Andresen says the message was supposed to [end in "CSW"] and the CSW was missed.
W: Possibly. He said something, I said something.
C: Why was it important for you to add something to this message?
W: It makes it a mix. It makes it more likely that it's a combination message.
C: It just has to be a new message. Why extra letters?
W: It makes it more likely that someone hasn't planned anything. Saying "CSW" makes it run differently is ridiculous, sorry.

W: Gavin watched everything I typed, I noted "you missed this". Then it verified.
C: It would be straight-forward to produce [fake Electrum]
W: You can do it, yes.
C: It would be feasible to create a program to interfere […] and produce misleading […]
W: Actually no. Electrum was downloaded, that was validated with logs. It was Gavin's USB stick.
C: Staging this signing session would be straight-forward for someone with your experience.
W: No actually. [lists qualifications] You can do it, but it's incredibly difficult. I did exercises, My Lord, for anti-virus companies, it took three months…
C: You said it was straight-forward, now you're saying it's difficult.
W: If I had my own machine.
C: All this assumes there have been a genuine download, but it's just your word.
W: And Gavin's.
C: No, he says you performed the download.
W: He was watching. The certificate is on the site. Electrum was running the secure browsing platform. Those browsers supported bringing up invalid website in large red [warning]. That has been depreciated. [Yes, he says depreciated, not deprecated.]

C: There's expert evidence saying it would be straight-forward.
W: Professor M isn't an expert on [stuff], has never done this, never demonstrated. Read any literature on the area, some of it is mine, it would take months. It took MS 6-8 months with a global outreach.
C: What about [some expert]
W: He's not an expert.
C: It's your expert.
W: We chose an expert on Bitcoin, that's a different topic. No expert at experimentation etc.
C: No-one on your behalf [did something]
W: Wanted the Citrix expert rather than Stroz.
C: [missed]
W: Actually incorrect. We moved in and out of the chair, it was 7 years ago, can't remember with exact clarity. Gavin saw everything I typed, saw the site, I spoke to him about it, he was never not looking at the screen.
C: He doesn't sound anything like that.
W: Actually he does.
C: [shows witness statement]

C: Moving on to your destruction of private keys. You say in Wright4 you destroyed the hard drive in 2016.
W: I'm not clear on it; I had come back from hospital and was sedated, hadn't slept much. I know I destroyed it…
C: You didn't express uncertainty in the witness statement.
W: I know I was medicated and sedated. I was tired, upset and angry, I overreacted. I don't know if you have been angry, but recollection is never good.
C: You're saying you're unsure about method of destruction.
W: I basically destroyed it. I threw it to the ground. I might have used a hammer, not sure, I just know I destroyed it.
C: [quotes Wright about autism, impulsive destruction] [shows Hodlonaut transcript] You say there were two drives you destroyed. You say confidently you stomped one with your foot and destroyed the other with a hammer. Difference on recollection which you try to paper over today.
W: It was smashed. I angry and upset. I'm much better after years of trying to control my anger. I can't explain it, I know I destroyed it. I threw a laptop as well.

C: [quotes witness statement] Difference between saying "I destroyed something impulsively" and "I destroyed it because [bitcoin is not encrypted etc]"
W: Absolutely not, only 2 BTC nodes control the network. AWS will give any order, My Lord, acting within the law…
C: We need to make some progress. There is a difference.
W: Not at all, this is my life's work. 100+ hours a week. I'm not making an anti-government things, child porn etc, that gets me riled. [etc]
C: You said you destroyed the drive without thinking of long-term consequences. Now you say you did it because of long-term consequences.
W: [goes on, raised voice]
C: You said you made it impossible for yourself to do more signings. You hadn't even tried to gain access to the keys again.
W: Not fully. AlixPartners couldn't image the on-site computers.
C: You say you were wrong to tell court in Kleiman that you hadn't seen if you could access the keys.
W: I noted the QNAP servers had been damaged, I wasn't meant to try to get the keys.

C: You had not even tried to regain access.
W: Until 2019. I hadn't got QNAP servers back.
C: You knew you couldn't get access to the keys, yet in Hodlonaut you *could* gain access by tracking down these people. Contradition.
W: No, the QNAP server still exists. When I get it back, I can check. The machine has been floating around the world someone, 240TB of my data.

C: After Sartre debacle, in July 2016 you were to meet Mike Hearn.
W: Matonis tried to set something up, he wanted me to meet him.
C: A dinner was set up. Hearn asked technical questions about the early operation of Bitcoin, including SIGHASH flag.
W: Hearn was probing areas of my research. Some of my patents.
C: The reality is he wasn't asking about patents. He was asking technical questions to establish [whether you are Satoshi?]
W: No, he filed a patent weeks later, but luckily I had filed a day before our meeting. Hearn went into iDaemon etc.
C: That's disputed.

C: Since 2020, you've asserted copyright on Bitcoin wp, database, name etc.
W: Not the name, that's a trademark issue.
C: In January 2021, you asked Ontier to send letters to cease hosting the Bitcoin wp.
W: Most were involved in scams.
C: I don't accept that. You have engaged in a series of legal actions about those rights and defamation.
W: The defamation attacks were led by Jack Dorsey, with the Lightning Torch etc…
C: You're digressing, I'm going to stop you there.
W: You asked me a different question.
C: I asked if you had issued defamation claims.
W: [repeats Hough] That's an incorrect claim. I didn't care they didn't think I was Satoshi, I cared that they called me a fraud. Twitter campaign said if you use BSV you are fraud. BSV was delisted. I cared about all of that.

C: [shows doc] You have been extremely active on social media threatening Bitcoin developers with bankruptcy, losing their families etc.
W: No, I've threatened criminals, such as CZ. Now terrorism funding charges. One of them was a "BTC Core" developer. He made a mixer to fund Hamas and others.
C: [quotes Wright, "death penalty"] Anybody who wants to run an alternative protocol is in your cross-hairs.
W: No. Taproot, My Lord, was introduced to anonymize transactions. To make illegal exchanges, outside of legislation.

C: [shows Hodlonaut doc, Ayre tweet, troll hunting] Ayre says you will go after people who dispute your claims.
W: I don't know what Ayre is doing.
C: You say you have no knowledge of tweets like this?
W: I know he tweets. This was about going after Lighting Torch people.
C: [shows Ayre tweet, "just waiting for a volunteer to bankrupt"] Tweeting about you taking [action]
W: I don't know. I don't read Ayre's Twitter. I know he supports me.
C: Do you follow him?
W: I don't know, nChain runs my account.
C: He as interest in nChain?
W: I don't know what his percentage is.
C: The Ayre Group has a majority of nChain.
W: I know he's an investor.
C: He controls nChain. He has provided funding for you litigation.
W: No, the only money I receive is a consulting fee.

C: [shows mock trial letter, it says Ayre is a funder] Were they wrong?
W: They're funding action against CAH.
C: This is talking about before the bust-up with CAH.
W: No, this is November. A filing against Zafar is coming.
C: This is nothing to do with that. [it's about this trial]
C: Are you aware that Ayre seeks to benefit through BSV?
W: No, he's actually losing a lot of money.
C: [quotes Ayre pumping BSV in January] Are you aware of this?
W: No. BSV has been delisted by your clients.
C: So he's not talking about trading in tokens?
W: I doubt it. He would be [talking about companies?]
C: [shows Ayre tweeting about tokens] It's about BSV.
W: Looks like it, but I don't know.

C: [shows email from Ayre to Wright, Sept 2023. CAH leak] Did you receive it?
W: No.
C: Ayre has acknowledge it, aware?
W: No.
C: [shows Ayre acknowledging the email]
W: It doesn't look like it.
C: [quotes Ayre's email] He was trying to push you into signing.
W: I don't recall the email. They're still dealing with each other.
C: You write there's no paper trail of you owning tokens. Do you remember this?
W: No, why would he have a paper trail? I'm not a trustee.
C: [quotes Ayre pissing away inheritance] He has been funding your cases?
W: No.
C: He was trying to make you sign?
W: No. I'm dealing with nChain still, and Teranode is still happening.

C: [quotes Ayre saying he will say Wright replaced docs]
W: It came from Zafar. He has Zafar had put together something, I would need to go to My Lord and say it is fake and beg forgiveness.
C: [quotes more] Ayre has really not provided financial support?
W: No, I sold share and such things, that's different.
C: [quotes Ayre saying he will be the only thing between him and the soup kitchen]
W: No, [something] is just wrong. [implies fake?]
C: My Lord, I suggest a break, this is stressing Wright.
Mellor: Alright Dr Wright, relax and have a lunch.

I am going to have a lunch.

My partisan propaganda will continue in 25 minutes. Prepare for Marxist brainwashing, comrades.

We're back.

C: [shows Kleiman transcript] Kleiman argued [not involved with Bitcoin], your response was "I told everyone, lots of people". You say 300-400 people in Australia knew I was Satoshi.
W: Yes. My Lord, there's a false premise. My premise isn't that I want to prove that I am Satoshi, it is that I am Satoshi. The premise is that I wanted to come out and be Satoshi. I never wanted, still don't. I don't want, My Lord, my life's work misrepresented. I didn't ever want to be Satoshi. I wanted to be left alone to invent. I've written 3 papers this week, in lunch time and things like that. I'm doing 5 doctorates, many degrees. I will keep inventing no matter what the outcome of this case is. I'll hit 10 000 patents and I'll keep going. I don't want anyone to believe in me. I'm a pastor, the only thing you should believe in is God. I just want one simple thing: My invention not misrepresented. That's what "BTC Core" is doing, and that's why I'm here.

C: [missed]
Mellor: Answer the question. You've made your speech.
C: You were asked about [proving Satoshi]. You said you're chasing down witnesses, want to get to 100. Here we are after millions spent, and there are just TWO witnesses who claim to have had the whitepaper or [knew you were Satoshi]
W: Totally false. Matthews is not my backer. I don't get any money from him. Pang was involved, the other people such as Rob talk about the invention. I didn't call it Bitcoin back then, I talked about TimeCoin. I implemented systems with Dave Bridges, Archibald. Completely false.
C: You called none of the people at BDO as witnesses.
W: Neville is old, not here because of health. My uncle's health is failing, he's had two strokes. A lot of them are getting older.

C: No records from PornHub?
W: No. Wanted to reach out, don't know how to.
C: [none] had access to whitepaper work etc?
W: They've received hate mail or death threats. Anyone involved in actual Bitcoin get threats. There are campaigns.
C: You've never produced a single Satoshi email not already in the public domain.
W: I've talked about lots of these, I don't have them anymore. gmx was hacked etc. All that has been taken over.
C: You've never [published correspondence]
W: I don't even remember my supervisors' names.
C: You've never [missed] linked to Satoshi?
W: Actually I have, linked to ATO etc
C: [missed, people]
W: They would have to be asked.
C: You've raised questions around provenance for documents.
W: I've not denied. On top of that, I've had conversations with Gavin.
C: Cryptographic proof.
W: There's no such thing other than hearsay. Even the Hal Finney one is hearsay. No such thing as cryptographic proof of identity. [ramble]
C: Without [witnesses, documents], there's no proof.
W: I have […] 1300 in-progress patents, 4000 pending, that in itself is evidence. Early people like Gwern tried to [missed]. Maxwell outed someone falsely because of one patent, Back too. All of them denied it. Despite all of this, no Satoshi has come forth. 20 years from now, there still won't be. If I lose this case, I will create more patents…

C: Blaming lawyers. You blame them for a number of mistakes, also your Norwegian lawyers.
W: That's why I fired them. I had new lawyers.
C: [shows TTL doc, quotes lawyers not following his instruction]
W: Yes, they refused to run the case I wanted, had to replace with only weeks to go.
C: Also in McCormack case.
W: Oh, Ontier actually changed their header on a document, a witness didn't testify…
Grabiner: Could I intervene. The documents speak for themselves. The witness is going to run the risk of [missed] Since he can make the point from the paper, I'm not going to make the point that we didn't put the point to Wright [missed]
C: It's a necessary preamble to following questions.

C: If the court in this case decides you are not Satoshi, you will still maintain that you are.
W: Well I am.
C: You will still want to make claims based on his IP rights.
W: I don't need to be Satoshi to make that case.
C: The claims are based on Satoshi
W: If I can a Champaign (?) case [missed]
C: You will still make claims
W: No, I'd move to patents. Taproot is based on 3 nChain patents. We would pull the plug on that. European courts will start patent actions on that, and then the US. I'll force them to shut down. We'll go to AWS who we've partnered with. If I lose this, there are 80 patent cases waiting.

C: You will still [make Satoshi claims]
W: I don't care, I didn't wanted outing. Let me invent. If they leave me alone, I will leave them alone.
C: You are not the author of Bitcoin wp or source code.
W: I am the person who invented Bitcoin, the hash-chain system, timestamp server. Over 1000 patents, 4000 pending…
C: It's a lie and a hoax.
W: The opposite. We are spending millions of pounds per month testing scaling…
C: It's a lie you have supported with the forged documents.
W: No.
C: A lie that has sustained other lies.
W: No, it is not.
C: My Lord, no further questions.

Gunning (G): You said [missed]
W: I said billions. I did not ask for it. Positive or negative.
G: You suggest you weren't claiming to get billions. "BTC Core" [missed] diminished if you won. Are you claiming […] other than recovery of legal cost?
W: Every single cent I recover in cost goes to Burnside and other charities.
G: You're saying you are seeking monetary remedy?
W: I will seek to cover any damage people had from losses, not for me.
G: Are you making any claim on behalf of yourself or your company on monetary remedy?
W: Not to me. If you agreed to follow British law, that you changed Bitcoin from the whitepaper, I would be happy, you give that money to a charity part of my church.
Mellor: Simple question. Are they going to have to write a check?
W: My Lord, if they implement the required changes so the British legislation is followed, I will forego any money. If not, I want my money.
Mellor: Have you explained required changes?
W: They know what I want, but I will sit down with them. No more money laundering, no more Taproot for secret payments. A million dollar went to Hamas. Stop. If that's agreed, I'm good.

G: [shows release notes for Bitcoin Core 0.9,0, 9 years ago] It refers to how to upgrade. Heading refers to rebranding to Bitcoin Core. [quotes]
W: [agrees Bitcoin project was renamed to Bitcoin Core]
G: [shows witness statement] You say over time they adopted the term UTXO.
W: It was used going back to 2009, when "block chain" was used.
G: That's not true. [missed]
W: No, it had been used in 2009.
G: That's not correct. [quotes someone in 2011 suggests "UTXO"]
W: No "txout" had been used before.
G: Can you point to earlier use of UTXO?
W: Not while sitting here, no.

G: [shows 2009 issue of main.cpp] It has a function called checkBlock. It checked whether aspects of a new block were valid.
W: Yes, basically validating blocks.
G: In that sense it was the first defense against invalid blocks, right?
W: No, before blocks you receive transactions. They are broadcast, and the first line of defense […], then you build your block.
G: checkBlock had six checks?
W: No, there are multiple versions.
G: [goes through checks] Timestamp check.
W: Things like selfish mining, people building, propagating… you can't have a way to easily integrate NTP, I noticed this in the first version. Instead used a moving average system.
G: Yes, but it's checking the timestamp
W: It's validating [missed]
G: Then it checks transaction. What was the check?
W: Making sure they are valid, follow rules etc.
G: What sort of thing?
W: Bitcoin uses script. There was the keyword etc, we're ensuring all the inputs and outputs, the ECDSA key etc.

G: The other day, you said ECDSA checks [were heavy] [shows source] They were just basic checks.
W: It's a bit more than that. Each of those are pairings…
G: We'll get to that. [quotes code] That was checking for at least one input and output. And amount wasn't negative. And if coinbase, the script size was a certain size. If not, then the input had to be the output [missed]. It did not check ECDSA signatures.
W: That checks these other functions.
G: You are wrong about that.
W: That's ECDSA, but it's not in that call.
G: It's a central point in the Bitcoin software.
W: You're not letting me explain it properly.
G: I'm going to explain it to you. See here, a function processBlock. It calls checkBlock. Then acceptBlock. It's there signatures a checks.
W: Each of these call other functions. You're saying each of these don't do that. The diagram is a functional call mapping [missed]

G: I'm not asking you about diagrams, but about the function.
W: If there's a header and [missed] it's all part of the function.
G: I'm afraid you're wrong.
W: The block includes the full check. The transaction goes into the block and goes into the tree structure.
G: You said it contained an ECDSA signature check, and it doesn't.
W: I didn't say that. checkBlock doesn't work unless all of the functions are there.
Mellor: You'll have to show us where all of these functions are, Wright.
G: I can do it, it will take some time.

G: [goes through code] connectBlock is called
W: And it also has…
G: It calls connectInputs. Then we get to verifySignature. It's part of acceptBlock, not verifyBlock. Agree?
W: I have not looked at it [since 2017?] Do I recall every single thing from back then, no. If you give me my diagram, I can talk you through it.
G: I think Satoshi would remember. And you don't.
W: After 15 years, no. If you give me my environment, I can [show]

C: [shows pull request] It has 11 commits. Here's one of them, "switch to headers-based sync". Proposes changes to main.cpp. Lines in green shows they are new, right?
W: Uhm …
G: You're not familiar with GitHub?
W: My team runs git, I use svn.
G: That functions has two checks. First that […], second timestamp. Those are both checks from earlier. But these only checks block header.
W: No, again, the block won't be validated unless […], you need all of that checked.
G: This was modularizing the function.
W: In 2013 yes, that was changed by sipa.
G: It came in 2014, right?
W: Not sure.

G: These things we've talked about were introduced by developers other than Satoshi.
W: Not UTXO
G: [shows 2017 reliance doc] You say it's a Word doc you created in 2008 as part of working on Bitcoin. You have a section of academic models. [quotes nodes propagating blocks etc] "Bitcoin Core client validates …" We just established terminology.
W: No, you changed [something] Patches for this or that. Core used the term, it adopted it, wasn't the first use.
W: This is talking about main vs. SPV.

W: checkBlockHeader was for SPV. A version of Bitcoin without all the checking. It was about having SPV as part of the wp.
G: There's no reference in the wp to checkBlockHeader.
W: There's no reference to any of the coding terms in the wp.
W: [explains SPV, looks at Mellor]
G: Nobody referred to checkBlockHeader until [missed]
W: No
G: Not a single reference until Dr Wuille introduced it on GitHub
W: [missed]
G: Andresen didn't introduce it
W: No, [missed]
G: They don't include reference to checkBlockHeader
W: I coded it, but I don't do everything in public. It was based on our work, not his.
G: I'm asking about things only Satoshi would know about. There was no reference to checkBlockHeader.
W: Difference. There is a reference to SPV. Read the section.

G: I will not see any reference to checkBlockHeader.
W: [no coding terms in wp]
W: I worked on SPV before even Bitcoin.
G: The also see a third anachronism: UTXO. Satoshi never used UTXO.
W: Uhm, yes I did, because it's me. As Satoshi I didn't talk about epidemic modeling etc, I built them [in private]
G: It refers to UTXO pool. That only came after [missed]
W: No, the models I'd been building include this. iDaemon etc.
G: If you were Satoshi and you chose to rely on this doc, you would have spotted these anachronisms.
W: No, because they're not. Not "BTC Core", something in my server. Using a standard term, you would say anachronism because it's not in Core, but it's in my paper.
G: Did you read it?
W: Yes
G: And yo chose to rely on it despite anachronisms?
W: They're not anachronisms.

G: Here it also refers to UTXO.
W: Yes [something my other work]
G: Here it's meant to predate 2007. Again, UTXO addresses and UTXO pool.
W: I don't publish everything I write.
G: This is very compelling evidence you interfered with the BDO drive.
W: It is not. You're saying because there's not a lot of evidence […] Despite the fact that your client runs it, no private messages are available from the forum.
W: I had limited communication with bitcoin people. Mostly Gavin.
G: So you didn't tell anyone about UTXO.
W: It's a timestamp server, it's not "everything free", it's a commercial system.

G: [expert] has been through it with you and explained why forged.
W: The metadata is not forged.
G: You wrote it.
W: Yes, over 15 years ago.
G: You forged them.
W: No. I got 1000s of docs, patents, had not discussed any of that terminology.
G: So nobody else could have forged these docs?
W: They're not forged.

G: [shows Wright witness statement] You say you've done all you can to build in versioning etc. You say BTC has limited size of script, gives little ability to add data. It refers to a GitHub page. [shows page] Declaring constant int MAX_SCRIPT_ELEMENT_SIZE. Do you know what unsigned means?
W: Basically an unsigned variable, it's not an integer with … it's larger, I'm not sure how to say it.
G: Try.
W: How I'd describe it, I'm not quite sure. I'm not good with trying to do things like this.

G: You said you had a book by Professor [something] You have disclosed C++ book. You see it explains that unsigned means it cannot be negative.
W: Yes, I know *that*. But I don't know how to say it so simply.
G: [missed]
W: I know it was one I was behind.
G: TheBlueMatt. The relevant line of script. The constant equals [something]
W: No, it says [something] Oh, it's an unsigned int.
G: It's 520. We can see the name of the commit. Can you read it?
W: [reads]
G: No, that's the PR name. Read the commit.
W: Oh. I don't know how to use git.
G: A constant has been named MAX_… and has 520 as value. So the essence of this commit was replacing a hardcoded limit with the constant.
W: That was changing it, yes.
G: [goes through code]
W: OK?
G: So the doc you referred to wasn't Core imposing a limit.
W: No, I [missed]
G: The limit already existed. It only gave a name to it.
W: No, the limit was meant to be updated.
G: You used the name for clarity, yes?
W: [vague, Kurt]

G: You read out the definition of "transaction". The language came from a couple of websites. Did it come from there?
W: No, something I've been using for a long time.
Mellor: [asked]
W: I wrote it down [long ago?]
G: [quotes Wright's definition] I found it on [website]
W: I'm sure it's on many websites. It's a common term.
G: It's important in this case that you don't [missed]

Break.

Back.

G: Been asking about the script element size change. [shows Satoshi commit, 2010] He made changes to script.cpp. Push value size was reduced by Satoshi.
W: It the time there was an attack against the network, changed it temporarily. Also said block size could be increased.
G: Satoshi also [missed]
W: It was a temporary measure. Temporary measure.
G: This is August 2010. Satoshi [left]
W: I was building other systems.
G: [something about max size]
W: Someone suggested it. I had noted you can incrase this…
G: The question was that Satoshi placed this limit, and you didn't know this because you're not Satoshi,
W: You're misrepresenting, I've said publicly that this was implemented as a temporary fix due to an attack. Discussed with Gavin and others at the time.

G: Disabling opcodes: you say many important opcodes have been disabled. You see?
W: Yes, the distinction is…
G: You're saying it was disabled by Bitcoin Core?
W: Yes, they had been removed and replaced. Completely replaced. This includes sort of actually changing and adding SegWit [etc]
G: Here is a list of opcodes in BSV, disabled in BTC script. You were talking about these?
W: Not all of them. Some of them, yes.
G: Reason for disabling LSHIFT?
W: People were saying it hadn't been security tested. It could make a [missed]
G: We can see the background to it. You read Andresen's email over the weekend?
W: No.
G: [shows Andresen email to Satoshi] It stopped bitcoind from crashing. Gavin responds to Satoshi, looking for article about the LSHIFT crash.
W: Yes, this is about GitHub, was different.

G: [shows commit by Satoshi again] Satoshi inserted this section. A number of opcodes. That has the effect of removing the opcode?
W: Temporarily, yes.
G: It was sent to you by [him]?
W: It was discussed back then.
G: Can you point to anything else?
W: There were emails and discussions.
G: [reads code]. Seems to be a double-bar.
W: Concatenation. == is equivalence.
G: What's the double-bar?
W: It's the [missed] for all.

G: You refer to opcodes disabled, but not that Satoshi did it.
W: I pulled them temporarily. I September I discussed a security check needed to be done. LSHIFT code wasn't necessarily a problem, just my code.
G: OP_2MUL was disabled.
W: I just took patches, a lot of people were complaining. I put a temporary block in there. Now it's been completely removed.
G: What you say were disabled by Core, was disabled by Satoshi.
W: They rewrote the code. Now there's no code, and some of those areas have been overwritten by new opcodes.
G: OP_2MUL is another example of disabled opcodes you said wasn't necessary? It's disabled in BSV, isn't it.
W: It isn't meant to be. It's in the thing that should have been [missed] already.

G: It says BSV opcodes have been disabled.
W: I will see to that someone fixes that ASAP.
G: You haven't looked at this?
W: Not specifically, no.
G: [missed]
W: I implemented the code.
G: You have this whole explanation. But Satoshi would know.
W: I do know. Most of the things have been turned on one after one in BSV as we checked. That one I didn't realize had been missed.
G: You said it was temporary by Satoshi.
W: It was.
G: You were around for a while after that.
W: Not really. It was one of my busiest [times]. On top of that, my marriage fell apart that month. ATO started.

G: You may have been distracted in August 2010, but Satoshi wasn't. He could have activated it, but didn't.
W: No, incorrect. It would have been simple to increase the block size, but that was ignored. People went for limits.

G: You've been asked about Satoshi's PGP key. [shows key] There can be multiple keys within one key, right?
W: Yes.
G: You see the public key packet is identified first? It has a key ID [quotes]. Public subkey package is identified, it has a key ID [quotes]. So there are two keys within this key, right?
W: I haven't worked PGP for a long time, I used to know it a lot better.
G: But there's a subkey?
W: Yes.
G: I want to stick with the primary key. It identifies the UID as Satoshi.
W: Yes, you just type it.
G: So this is associated with Satoshi's gmx email?
W: [confirms?]
G: This key somehow came from Vistamail?
W: The server allows for keys. Saying it comes from Vistamail just means I typed in Satoshi's email in the server field.
G: You're aware that Vistamail used CentOS?
W: Not all the time. At one point they used Mac.
G: This PGP key is a Windows system.
W: Uh, no, that's where the header version […]
G: You know well that [software name] is a Windows system?
W: I do.

G: It identifies version, sigtype etc. This is the OpenPGP message [packet?] When you create a key, you identify the type?
W: You can, you can put what you want. You set the algorithms etc.
G: But DSA, stands for? [Wright answers correctly]
W: DSA is not encryption.
G: The issuer has done substantial verification, right?
W: I do.
G: So it confirms the user ID packet?
W: No, that is just a setting. If the system recognizes the user account et cetera, [it's ok]. Just a setting.
G: It's Satoshi saying … the person this is associates it with the user ID.
W: With that address.
G: [quotes IDs etc]
W: If you're putting a key, as I did, like I was doing, associating, I wanted encrypted packet, that would be valid. Doesn't do anything for identity.
G: It shows Satoshi's key was designated as a signing key.
W: No, it shows it could be used for that.
G: The primary key couldn't be used as an encryption key?
W: No, it was used for encryption.

G: See the algorithm? It says algo17, means DSA. So that's a signing key?
W: No, it's more for [something], you encrypt and then sign.
G: You just said […]
W: You use two keys, encrypt then sign.
G: You're not right, Dr Wright. The primary key is a signing key.
W: I don't remember each of the names.
G: There are two keys, one signing and one encryption.

G: You said PGP is not a signing key.
W: It's used for encryption.
G: The primary key was set up as a signing key.
W: No, do I remember each of the numbers in PGP anymore? No. I did a lot of work to [learn] C and C++ when I worked on Bitcoin, do I remember it all now? No.
G: [missed]
W: Gavin 14-13 I believe. That was one of the CVs. You see pages of coding experience.
G: When did you send it to Gavin?
W: 2016. It was a BDO doc. Also in disclosure platform.

G: We established that the primary key is a signing key?
W: It was an automated system. It was for encryption, and that's what I used it for.
G: Had you signed with it, it would be powerful evidence of you being Satoshi, wouldn't it?
W: No. The server has been under control of multiple people. Not in my control the whole time.

G: [shows Kleiman transcript] Rivero asked if you were [mining/running] Bitcoin when it went live. You had 69 computers. Split between Bagnoo and [other place]. Residential house?
W: Turned garage into computer room.
G: Didn't your sister talk about seeing computers in your bedroom?
W: No, that was in 2002. It wasn't my bedroom, I converted it to a computer room.
G: You talked about electricity cost. 11K AUD per month. In these proceedings, you say you were using numerous computer systems. You said 69 racks, but that was in error. That's where you were spending the 11k dollars?
W: Something like that. The company paid for the three-phase power, and I paid for [other]
G: You haven't explained [missed]
W: I don't have those records anymore.
G: Why didn't you ask the electricity company?
W: They don't have them anymore
G: Did you ask?
W: Yes. At least my wife did.

G: [missed]
W: Entirety, not just Bitcoin, it was the test systems for Bitcoin as well.
G: The test network?
W: No, the test system. Now we have testnet, but not then.
G: You accused Professor M of misrepresenting Bitcoin. You said the majority is for validating ECDSA.
W: I said one part.
W: I have been working on scaling solutions.
G: In terms of Bitcoin, it was mostly ECDSA.
W: If there are transactions, ECDSA takes up most of the [resources?]
G: Was the majority of you Bitcoin system about validating ECDSA? Yes or no.
W: There is no yes and no. Logging systems etc.
G: How many transactions per block back then?
W: It varied.
G: There were just 219 transactions [across many blocks] Many one per block.
W: I'm surprised there were five, but […]
G: So ECDSA couldn't have been the majority.
W: I was doing testing as well.
G: [quotes Wright about majority]

W: On top of that I had to run multiple systems, including logging etc.
G: You presented to the court that the majority was validating ECDSA.
W: Yes, but not in the way you are saying. Block headers, calculations based on that.
G: That assertion, I would reckon [missed]
W: No, I have a number of patents. Certihash has integrated with IBM and are running on clients.

G: [Danielle DeMorgan witness statement]
W: It was 2002, I had multiple homes. She probably mixed the two up.
G: We actually have the [?] The cost per month was closer to 800 dollars for 3 months.
W: I had a separate account for InfoDefense, 3-phase power for the area.
G: [shows electricity bill]
W: That is for the house, just my office etc.
G: And you have no record of that electricity bill?
W: No record for […]

G: [shows Bitcoin forum print] Genjix wanted to send something to WikiLeaks. Do you know who this is?
W: No [explains]
G: R. Horning says "bring it on". "Let's encourage WikiLeaks". Picked up by Satoshi, says "no, don't bring it on". Satoshi was opposed to WikiLeaks using Bitcoin?
W: Ahhm, yes and no. Any legal use should be able to use it. But Bitcoin needed to be more resilient.
G: [shows PC World article about WikiLeaks scandal] Specifically mentions Bitcoin. Caused Bitcoin forum posts?
W: I wasn't terribly involved, but yes.
G: Satoshi responds, "hornets nest". One of his final postings, indicates he did not want negative attention.
W: I wanted a whole lot of other things first. Didn't want it to be seen as a WikiLeaks thing.
G: Satoshi strongly disapproved.
W: It wasn't a good first use-case. Market places, escrow etc weren't being used, instead Silk Road etc.

G: [shows 2011 Wright article about Lulzsec] It was the first time you referred to Bitcoin.
W: No.
G: You have earlier writings?
W: Yes, but after 15 years I don't have them.
G: [missed]
W: I made some comments
G: [shows comments] Responded to PhD candidate. You said many options, such as PayPal, WikiLeaks can get money transfers, "Bit Coins" etc. You suggested Bitcoin.
W: I just pointed out it was an option.
C: You spelled it in two words.
W: It was autocorrect.
C: We just saw Satoshi strongly disapproved.
W: No, I didn't want Silk Road to be *the mail* thing. Then I said there are other options.

G: [shows comment] You see Google Checkout as a good option. "Facebook Credit will be public soon" etc. Then you say "BitCoin". You're still using two words.
W: Still the same [something] yes.
G: I've done it as Satoshi too.
W: Not as separate words.
G: [missed]
W: Also on some of the forums.
G: And then you removed it?
W: No, I standardized.
G: You were not familiar with it and didn't even know how to spell it.
W: That's incorrect, I already had a company extensively researching the area.
G: You didn't know Satoshi discouraged WikiLeaks.
W: I knew what I said. It was meant to be pasted as a hyperlink, and somehow [missed]

G: Dr Wright, you're not Satoshi Nakamoto, are you.
W: I am.
Mellor: I have a couple of things. Could you bring up the transcript of Day 3? You […] LaTeX. Do you have to set the time in LaTeX?
W: You don't have to, it depends on the system. When you're doing […] you can choose to not. I generally do, or you can put something like "date" and it will pull it up. As I'm doing drafts, I have autoset, and for final I set it.
Mellor: Can we go to [id] In Wright4 you said this doc was made available to staff etc.
W: Yes, it was also loaded on SSRN. [etc]
Mellor: Formatting differences. The only content differences is Wright instead of Satoshi. Why would any of your employees or consultants access this doc when they had the [real] thing?
W: I had asked to put it on SSRN, they don't accept pseudonyms.

Mellor: Various trusts. The purpose was to keep assets, IP and Bitcoin away from the creditors?
W: Primarily.
Mellor: You made it clear that you couldn't access any of the Bitcoin. Did that also apply to the IP?
W: I could recreate most of it. I don't think anyone can force me to create something if I can't get it. If I was bankrupted, they can't force me to […]
Mellor: Your ideas, all those patents, database rights etc, confidential information. Was it put beyond the reach of your creditors?
W: I think so. I went before a review panel and it was brought up. If I was bankrupted, they said it would be illegal because i was doing it to avoid bankruptcy. Because I wasn't bankrupt, they said we can't charge you.
Mellor: The IP is subject to the same trust as the bitcoin?
W: Structured so the company owns these rights. I tried to hide that away [missed a bit here]
Mellor: Seems to me there's a contradiction. IP was subject to trust, but you continued to work on it?
W: No, that happened after.
Mellor: What, after 2020?
W: No, I had a settlement with Mr […], paid a settlement, I won in the tribunal. I thought I could get around all this, but a few weeks later Dave died. So I started building it from scratch. I couldn't access my notes.

Mellor: so the trusts continued after 2013?
W: Yes, still now.
Mellor: So why [missed]
W: I had some files, there were info I didn't think was valuable, all my data was locked away. Lots of other files I didn't have access to.
Mellor: You didn't think a draft of the Bitcoin wp was valuable?
W: No, I didn't, My Lord.

Mellor: The question is about checkBlockHeader. In the original bitcoin source code, I won't find a function by that name?
W: No.
Mellor: Why not?
W: It hadn't been build. That's the headless client. The early version was a mish-mash of everything. The fullnode software, client software, was all in one mashed up UI with everything. I needed to build a stand-alone client allowing […] IP-to-IP-model. To make that work, I needed some sort of security, PKI so that your name is against an IP address, like Whatsapp has. The block header function would take only block headers. It's mentioned in the white paper.
Mellor. Someone has kindly found the right reference. You were asked about checkBlockHeader. It's in the present tense, not in the future.
W: I know it sounds strange, but I can show you some of my academic [?], I change tense all the time.
Grabiner: Lord, I have no more questions
Mellor: Wright, you are released from your oath. Thank you for your evidence.
W: Thank you My Lord. This has been stressful.

C: Some time table complications. Most can be resolved. Bird & Bird has discussed an earlier start on Monday. Perhaps 10am on Tuesday. We apologize to court staff. We understand the witnesses for tomorrow are Pang, Jenkins, Yousuf, all on video link.
Mellor: Matthews comes later?
C: He's being pushed to the end. But those three tomorrow.
Mellor: Do we need to sit early for those?
Orr: They are all on video link. I will request time to take instruction.
Mellor: Do you need more time [missed]?
Orr: We will try to make that deadline.
Mellor: OK, keep us informed of your progress.
Orr: At the moment, we don't believe it will be necessary for the court to [missed]

Aand we have finished for today. Thanks to all for reading and commenting!