February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright "The Satoshi Trial" Master Thread.
Wednesday, DAY 8.
PLEASE RETWEET FOR MAX CIRCULATION
Happy Valentine's Day!
Wednesday, DAY 8.
PLEASE RETWEET FOR MAX CIRCULATION
Happy Valentine's Day!
CRAIG IN A RED SHIRT AND TIE. GRAY SUIT.
CSW's KC: [Discussion redactions and claims to privilege. Basically, asking to release Craig from being under oath so they can discuss redacted stuff before he is examined on it again]
Hough and Gunning don't object. Shoosmiths need CSW's feedback to answer some questions on the new evidence, but can't while he's under oath.
COPA: You didn't write emails from Tyche email domain? You said it was a UK company owned by Rob that you didn't work for. This Baker/Mac paper, which you admit is genuine and signed by you, Ramona and Stefan. Shows Craig entering into a consulting agreement with Tyche for 150k GBP. Is this wrong?
CSW: Yes. On that day, it was 1200 pages of docs for all the IP. I didn't have solicitors with me and hadn't read them in detail.
COPA: So you signed an agreement without reading?
CSW: Correct. The email you brought up said "we are ready to start a family." But we were in our mid-forties at the time, and had 3 children already. It's clear that email is fake for that reason.
COPA: Is this your signature?
CSW: No. You've seen my signatures. This has a fake flourish, etc... I also wasn't living at that address. Other people did, including Wired and Giz, but we had moved in August.
COPA: So you didn't sign this?
CSW: I don't sign without Craig S Wright, and you see it's not there.
COPA: You didn't say this was a fake in disclosure.
CSW: It's listed as from a staff laptop.
COPA: This was disclosed?
CSW: Yes
COPA: It wasn't said as a fake?
CSW: I don't know what other people did. But I noted it in disclosure platform.
COPA: You see notes about science role at Tyche.
CSW: No, at nCrypt which became nChain. Check my taxes. It was only ever at nChain.
COPA: This is Kelly Connor setting up Chief Scientist at Tyche. Chief at HR.
CSW: Tyche was the HR agency for nCrypt. When Rob left, that changed.
COPA: The docs tell a consistent story of you at Tyche until 2018.
CSW: I handed over my taxes. They're all from nChain or nCrypt. This consulting firm wasn't my employer.
CSW's KC: [Discussion redactions and claims to privilege. Basically, asking to release Craig from being under oath so they can discuss redacted stuff before he is examined on it again]
Hough and Gunning don't object. Shoosmiths need CSW's feedback to answer some questions on the new evidence, but can't while he's under oath.
COPA: You didn't write emails from Tyche email domain? You said it was a UK company owned by Rob that you didn't work for. This Baker/Mac paper, which you admit is genuine and signed by you, Ramona and Stefan. Shows Craig entering into a consulting agreement with Tyche for 150k GBP. Is this wrong?
CSW: Yes. On that day, it was 1200 pages of docs for all the IP. I didn't have solicitors with me and hadn't read them in detail.
COPA: So you signed an agreement without reading?
CSW: Correct. The email you brought up said "we are ready to start a family." But we were in our mid-forties at the time, and had 3 children already. It's clear that email is fake for that reason.
COPA: Is this your signature?
CSW: No. You've seen my signatures. This has a fake flourish, etc... I also wasn't living at that address. Other people did, including Wired and Giz, but we had moved in August.
COPA: So you didn't sign this?
CSW: I don't sign without Craig S Wright, and you see it's not there.
COPA: You didn't say this was a fake in disclosure.
CSW: It's listed as from a staff laptop.
COPA: This was disclosed?
CSW: Yes
COPA: It wasn't said as a fake?
CSW: I don't know what other people did. But I noted it in disclosure platform.
COPA: You see notes about science role at Tyche.
CSW: No, at nCrypt which became nChain. Check my taxes. It was only ever at nChain.
COPA: This is Kelly Connor setting up Chief Scientist at Tyche. Chief at HR.
CSW: Tyche was the HR agency for nCrypt. When Rob left, that changed.
COPA: The docs tell a consistent story of you at Tyche until 2018.
CSW: I handed over my taxes. They're all from nChain or nCrypt. This consulting firm wasn't my employer.
COPA: Back to the Sartre message. Are you aware that all those articles said your post would demonstrate your holding of the key?
CSW: I didn't read GQ or the others. Rob did lots of things that I didn't consent to.
COPA: Do you know now the articles said you would?
CSW: No, I didn't read them.
COPA: Are you aware that in the hours after they posted, other posts explained how there was no crypto proof?
CSW: I'm not surprised, but I didn't read them
COPA: You're not aware of the take-downs?
CSW: I don't read Reddit or other places.
COPA: You don't even know there were criticisms of your non-proof?
CSW: I have here say. Lots of people keep telling me how dumb and useless I am, which is why I keep focused on my degrees.
COPA: Email to you and Calvin with Stefan CC'd. Saying your media coverage is souring badly and needs to be reclaimed. Ayre asking how it could have fallen apart. You said the wrong copy was uploaded.
CSW: That was probably from Tyche. I don't recall that era very well.
COPA: You didn't say this was a fake email in disclosure.
CSW: If I noted in the disclosure platform that it was from a compromised system.
COPA: That's your solicitor's system. Stop waving privilege.
CSW: So I can't answer the question you keep asking me?!
COPA: So all your docs are fake? Or just some?
CSW: If it's from a staff computer, it's compromised. It's been said in Kleiman, Granath, in front of a jury and in this room. The whole story needs to be told. It includes rogue staff and people who were paid or pressured to compromise my integrity.
COPA: You're aware Stefan said this was genuine?
CSW: He didn't realize Rob had taken over my account at the time.
COPA: The response attributed to you about the wrong copy being uploaded. That's wrong, isn't it?
CSW: I wasn't going to sign for these people without the proof pack of my real identity.
COPA: So this was an excuse from Rob?
CSW: I don't know. I was being threatened by Rob.
COPA: Stop
CSW: M Lord, can I please finish? It's important.
Mellor: Yes.
CSW: I was being threatened and felt tricked by Rob. I was losing sleep, being forced into something I didn't believe and led to my suicide attempt. I wanted it done by proving my work, but I was not in control of anything in my life.
COPA: Ayre simply says to fix it. You see that?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Stefan to Gavin: about the proof section.
CSW: I was saying "one last time" if all my work was made public, I would sign.
COPA: You said here you'd post using a sig from block 9.
CSW: I was on the Eurostar train at that time. It was Rob trying to commit me to it and make me look like a fool if I don't.
COPA: You're saying this is fake too?
CSW: It's a real email from someone else.
COPA: Email between Gavin and you. Why the SSL hoop jumping instead of Electrum message? You said "we fucked up, I'll be reloading it... I know I put through shit..." This is you?
CSW: No. 3rd party laptop.
COPA: Email between you, stefan and Ramona. Finalizing the signings stuff. This genuine?
CSW: I'm not sure. I was Craig at Demorgan or RCJBR.
COPA: This was the message Rob wanted delivered?
CSW: Yes, Rob had a billion dollar check for me to sign like a cypherpunk.
COPA: You keep digressing. It would be strange for Rob to send to an email that isn't you.
CSW: Not if he was creating evidence to show that I was onboard with his plan to pressure me. When I agreed to just be Chief Scientist, I turned over much of my control.
Mellor: Did your wife have control of nCryptRamona?
CSW: She originally did, but I don't know at this point. They would have forwarded to RCJBR if they were real.
COPA: Ramona responded that you were working on fixing the proof to re-upload. Is this consistent?
CSW: No, my wife wouldn't go behind my back on this.
COPA: These were going through including to Stefan?
CSW: I don't know what was happening at the time.
COPA: Stefan hadn't spotted this?
CSW: He trusted Rob at the time. Nobody would have realized there was an issue with him yet.
COPA: So Stefan was sending fake messages about when he was with you? Rob was sending fake messages to Stefan a day before he'd be spending time with you?
CSW: Stefan wasn't planning to be over. I asked him to come over because of the drama.
COPA: Email to Calvin, Stefan and your nCrypt email from Rob. You weren't en route to Wimbledon at this time?
CSW: This was right around my suicide attempt, so my memory is very fuzzy from this time.
COPA: You would make considerable money for a cypherpunk signing.
CSW: Well, Rob would. I'd have been screwed, I'm sure.
COPA: You understood journalists would say you proved yourself. You seemed compliant.
CSW: You heard my video of me at the time angry and swearing. That isn't content. That's angry Craig.
COPA: You were content to set these up for proofs.
CSW: Proof of my work and identity. Then angry when it changed.
COPA: You couldn't just sign could you?
CSW: The signing would be simple. But then it becomes about that instead of my work.
COPA: This email about moving coins is not you?
CSW: No, I always said I won't move coins.
COPA: Rob attaching email with the draft blog post to Stefan. Is this real?
CSW: I had no urgency to do any of these things.
COPA: So this is fake too?
CSW: It isn't mine. It's probably a real email.
CSW: I didn't read GQ or the others. Rob did lots of things that I didn't consent to.
COPA: Do you know now the articles said you would?
CSW: No, I didn't read them.
COPA: Are you aware that in the hours after they posted, other posts explained how there was no crypto proof?
CSW: I'm not surprised, but I didn't read them
COPA: You're not aware of the take-downs?
CSW: I don't read Reddit or other places.
COPA: You don't even know there were criticisms of your non-proof?
CSW: I have here say. Lots of people keep telling me how dumb and useless I am, which is why I keep focused on my degrees.
COPA: Email to you and Calvin with Stefan CC'd. Saying your media coverage is souring badly and needs to be reclaimed. Ayre asking how it could have fallen apart. You said the wrong copy was uploaded.
CSW: That was probably from Tyche. I don't recall that era very well.
COPA: You didn't say this was a fake email in disclosure.
CSW: If I noted in the disclosure platform that it was from a compromised system.
COPA: That's your solicitor's system. Stop waving privilege.
CSW: So I can't answer the question you keep asking me?!
COPA: So all your docs are fake? Or just some?
CSW: If it's from a staff computer, it's compromised. It's been said in Kleiman, Granath, in front of a jury and in this room. The whole story needs to be told. It includes rogue staff and people who were paid or pressured to compromise my integrity.
COPA: You're aware Stefan said this was genuine?
CSW: He didn't realize Rob had taken over my account at the time.
COPA: The response attributed to you about the wrong copy being uploaded. That's wrong, isn't it?
CSW: I wasn't going to sign for these people without the proof pack of my real identity.
COPA: So this was an excuse from Rob?
CSW: I don't know. I was being threatened by Rob.
COPA: Stop
CSW: M Lord, can I please finish? It's important.
Mellor: Yes.
CSW: I was being threatened and felt tricked by Rob. I was losing sleep, being forced into something I didn't believe and led to my suicide attempt. I wanted it done by proving my work, but I was not in control of anything in my life.
COPA: Ayre simply says to fix it. You see that?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Stefan to Gavin: about the proof section.
CSW: I was saying "one last time" if all my work was made public, I would sign.
COPA: You said here you'd post using a sig from block 9.
CSW: I was on the Eurostar train at that time. It was Rob trying to commit me to it and make me look like a fool if I don't.
COPA: You're saying this is fake too?
CSW: It's a real email from someone else.
COPA: Email between Gavin and you. Why the SSL hoop jumping instead of Electrum message? You said "we fucked up, I'll be reloading it... I know I put through shit..." This is you?
CSW: No. 3rd party laptop.
COPA: Email between you, stefan and Ramona. Finalizing the signings stuff. This genuine?
CSW: I'm not sure. I was Craig at Demorgan or RCJBR.
COPA: This was the message Rob wanted delivered?
CSW: Yes, Rob had a billion dollar check for me to sign like a cypherpunk.
COPA: You keep digressing. It would be strange for Rob to send to an email that isn't you.
CSW: Not if he was creating evidence to show that I was onboard with his plan to pressure me. When I agreed to just be Chief Scientist, I turned over much of my control.
Mellor: Did your wife have control of nCryptRamona?
CSW: She originally did, but I don't know at this point. They would have forwarded to RCJBR if they were real.
COPA: Ramona responded that you were working on fixing the proof to re-upload. Is this consistent?
CSW: No, my wife wouldn't go behind my back on this.
COPA: These were going through including to Stefan?
CSW: I don't know what was happening at the time.
COPA: Stefan hadn't spotted this?
CSW: He trusted Rob at the time. Nobody would have realized there was an issue with him yet.
COPA: So Stefan was sending fake messages about when he was with you? Rob was sending fake messages to Stefan a day before he'd be spending time with you?
CSW: Stefan wasn't planning to be over. I asked him to come over because of the drama.
COPA: Email to Calvin, Stefan and your nCrypt email from Rob. You weren't en route to Wimbledon at this time?
CSW: This was right around my suicide attempt, so my memory is very fuzzy from this time.
COPA: You would make considerable money for a cypherpunk signing.
CSW: Well, Rob would. I'd have been screwed, I'm sure.
COPA: You understood journalists would say you proved yourself. You seemed compliant.
CSW: You heard my video of me at the time angry and swearing. That isn't content. That's angry Craig.
COPA: You were content to set these up for proofs.
CSW: Proof of my work and identity. Then angry when it changed.
COPA: You couldn't just sign could you?
CSW: The signing would be simple. But then it becomes about that instead of my work.
COPA: This email about moving coins is not you?
CSW: No, I always said I won't move coins.
COPA: Rob attaching email with the draft blog post to Stefan. Is this real?
CSW: I had no urgency to do any of these things.
COPA: So this is fake too?
CSW: It isn't mine. It's probably a real email.
COPA: Here, your wife says something about being outed by leaked docs. He wants to dispel myths of "self-outing." Is this her?
CSW: Doesn't sound like her.
COPA: You must have understood these were significant. You didn't say these shouldn't be taken at face value.
CSW: Yes, I did. They show why I attempted suicide.
COPA: You didn't say Rob took over
CSW: I don't know if it was Rob. It's quite possibly him, but the impact was guys like Rory CJ saying I conned him out of bitcoin...
COPA: Under heading of PGP Key asking "have you got slices yes?" Rob saying "critical we get this today." This is also bad?
CSW: YEs, think about it. I would have already had the slices to decrypted the drive. I wouldn't have needed slices again.
COPA: This is a PGP Key
CSW: It's all from the same. The slices were an AES key to unlock the drive, so I would have had everything for everything. Email timeline doesn't make sense.
COPA: Email goes on to say you deny signing anything with the PGP key and had slice from Mayaka but not Savanna.
CSW: Mayaka lives in Kenya...
COPA: I'm not suggesting the slices are even real. I'm just saying you responded.
CSW: Everything is set up to make me look like I'm agreeing, but it misses the timeline point that I had the slices.
COPA: Stefan contributes here understanding.
CSW: You can also see things about BitcoinTalk, which I've also explained wasn't where I posted EVER. I wouldn't have agreed to this.
COPA: It's you giving people the run around isn't it?
CSW: Not at all.
COPA: You agree there's a known public key of Satoshi?
CSW: There's a 2011 one. The earlier one was changed out.
COPA: Here's a capture of the earliest one on BitcoinDotOrg site. Do you agree?
CSW: This was a key loaded by Martti in February replacing the other one. It was an encryption key, not a signing key.
COPA: That's public Satoshi PGP key known to the bitcoin community.
CSW: The community is a misreprentation. They're the community promoted since my departure in 2011.
COPA: Is this the key we looked at?
CSW: No. The key used for Gavin, Martti and others for encryption was loaded as a signing key, and it's not.
COPA: You're not answering the question.
CSW: I am.
COPA: There's a separate key?
CSW: You understand that private and public are separate things, right?
Mellor: Can you answer the question? This key, is this the key we're looking at?
CSW: This is a reference to a private, that is a reference to a public.
COPA: Is this a pair?
CSW: The ecryption key is related to this one, but isn't this one. It can be updated.
COPA: It was created by someone unknown so it's not a good proof of ID?
CSW: Yes, it was a server key...
COPA: So the key featured since 2011 on the DotOrg site isn't related to Satoshi?
CSW: It was a decryption key on the Vistomail site, on the server. It's gone because Vistomail is done. It was sent to a few people for sending info, but it wasn't a signing key.
COPA: Here's Malmi asking Satoshi to send a PGP key. Is this genuine?
CSW: Yes
COPA: GMX Satoshi account providing the key.
CSW: Yes
COPA: It's the same as the one on the page of BitcoinDotOrg?
CSW: It's the one Martti loaded.
COPA: Are the numbers the same?
CSW: It's the one Martti put there.
COPA: that isn't the question. are they the same numbers? [Hough very agitated]
CSW: It's the key Martti put there in 2011, yes.
COPA: email from Satoshi saying it was the same since 2008. Is this rright?
CSW: Not that key, no.
COPA: Wayback capture shows this, which you just denied.
CSW: I explained this was a privately sent key.
COPA: You're being dishonest here.
CSW: If the 2010 link goes to a 2011 site, it shows he is being dishonest. I think you stated there's no forensic evidence in a text file.
COPA: Madden says the metadata says otherwise.
CSW: HE said there's no metadata in a text file, didn't he?
COPA: So you don't think Madden is qualified on this either?
CSW: [smirks]
COPA: You see this as Satoshi at GMX email. The GMX address embedded in the PGP key. You said it was embedded in the Vistomail server, so that was incorrect.
CSW: No, multiple emails could be referenced. This isn't metadata. Your client, Greg Maxwell, actually explained why Madden is wrong in explaining how I must have been wrong before. You are asking for your cake and to eat it too.
Mellor: So who's doing this? Setting up PGP keys like this?
CSW: Me. Key creation and updates are done for various reasons.
COPA: You agree this key output shows it is for encryption and signing?
CSW: It CAN be, but that's bad practice. Satoshi wouldn't do that...
COPA: Before you have no answer again, this key could sign and encrypt, right?
CSW: When you do PGP, you can update to add or remove algos. I can add a new one if there's a compromise, for example.
COPA: This story isn't what you have said before.
CSW: I have noted many times that encryption and signing shouldn't be the same key, and that it's for sending files only.
FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
CSW: Doesn't sound like her.
COPA: You must have understood these were significant. You didn't say these shouldn't be taken at face value.
CSW: Yes, I did. They show why I attempted suicide.
COPA: You didn't say Rob took over
CSW: I don't know if it was Rob. It's quite possibly him, but the impact was guys like Rory CJ saying I conned him out of bitcoin...
COPA: Under heading of PGP Key asking "have you got slices yes?" Rob saying "critical we get this today." This is also bad?
CSW: YEs, think about it. I would have already had the slices to decrypted the drive. I wouldn't have needed slices again.
COPA: This is a PGP Key
CSW: It's all from the same. The slices were an AES key to unlock the drive, so I would have had everything for everything. Email timeline doesn't make sense.
COPA: Email goes on to say you deny signing anything with the PGP key and had slice from Mayaka but not Savanna.
CSW: Mayaka lives in Kenya...
COPA: I'm not suggesting the slices are even real. I'm just saying you responded.
CSW: Everything is set up to make me look like I'm agreeing, but it misses the timeline point that I had the slices.
COPA: Stefan contributes here understanding.
CSW: You can also see things about BitcoinTalk, which I've also explained wasn't where I posted EVER. I wouldn't have agreed to this.
COPA: It's you giving people the run around isn't it?
CSW: Not at all.
COPA: You agree there's a known public key of Satoshi?
CSW: There's a 2011 one. The earlier one was changed out.
COPA: Here's a capture of the earliest one on BitcoinDotOrg site. Do you agree?
CSW: This was a key loaded by Martti in February replacing the other one. It was an encryption key, not a signing key.
COPA: That's public Satoshi PGP key known to the bitcoin community.
CSW: The community is a misreprentation. They're the community promoted since my departure in 2011.
COPA: Is this the key we looked at?
CSW: No. The key used for Gavin, Martti and others for encryption was loaded as a signing key, and it's not.
COPA: You're not answering the question.
CSW: I am.
COPA: There's a separate key?
CSW: You understand that private and public are separate things, right?
Mellor: Can you answer the question? This key, is this the key we're looking at?
CSW: This is a reference to a private, that is a reference to a public.
COPA: Is this a pair?
CSW: The ecryption key is related to this one, but isn't this one. It can be updated.
COPA: It was created by someone unknown so it's not a good proof of ID?
CSW: Yes, it was a server key...
COPA: So the key featured since 2011 on the DotOrg site isn't related to Satoshi?
CSW: It was a decryption key on the Vistomail site, on the server. It's gone because Vistomail is done. It was sent to a few people for sending info, but it wasn't a signing key.
COPA: Here's Malmi asking Satoshi to send a PGP key. Is this genuine?
CSW: Yes
COPA: GMX Satoshi account providing the key.
CSW: Yes
COPA: It's the same as the one on the page of BitcoinDotOrg?
CSW: It's the one Martti loaded.
COPA: Are the numbers the same?
CSW: It's the one Martti put there.
COPA: that isn't the question. are they the same numbers? [Hough very agitated]
CSW: It's the key Martti put there in 2011, yes.
COPA: email from Satoshi saying it was the same since 2008. Is this rright?
CSW: Not that key, no.
COPA: Wayback capture shows this, which you just denied.
CSW: I explained this was a privately sent key.
COPA: You're being dishonest here.
CSW: If the 2010 link goes to a 2011 site, it shows he is being dishonest. I think you stated there's no forensic evidence in a text file.
COPA: Madden says the metadata says otherwise.
CSW: HE said there's no metadata in a text file, didn't he?
COPA: So you don't think Madden is qualified on this either?
CSW: [smirks]
COPA: You see this as Satoshi at GMX email. The GMX address embedded in the PGP key. You said it was embedded in the Vistomail server, so that was incorrect.
CSW: No, multiple emails could be referenced. This isn't metadata. Your client, Greg Maxwell, actually explained why Madden is wrong in explaining how I must have been wrong before. You are asking for your cake and to eat it too.
Mellor: So who's doing this? Setting up PGP keys like this?
CSW: Me. Key creation and updates are done for various reasons.
COPA: You agree this key output shows it is for encryption and signing?
CSW: It CAN be, but that's bad practice. Satoshi wouldn't do that...
COPA: Before you have no answer again, this key could sign and encrypt, right?
CSW: When you do PGP, you can update to add or remove algos. I can add a new one if there's a compromise, for example.
COPA: This story isn't what you have said before.
CSW: I have noted many times that encryption and signing shouldn't be the same key, and that it's for sending files only.
FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
STREAM JUST BURST BACK ON. I LIKELY MISSED A FEW MINUTES DUE TO MISSING STREAM.
CSW: I have known Stefan for years. He wouldn't have a reason to believe something wasn't me. The only reason these were put in at all was because Kleiman case demanded everything.
COPA: Don't tell us anything privileged.
COPA: Rob email asking about Matonis interview and asking what Jon is allowed to talk about.
CSW: This was the day I attempted suicide. There were emails sent while I was unconscious...
COPA: This was the morning so, not in the hospital yet.
Mellor: Let's see if any emails are sent while you're in the hospital before we speculate.
COPA: Moving on. Stefan's account says you had a call with Gavin on the phone discussing moving coin.
CSW: I don't recall.
COPA: He says it was on speaker in his presence.
CSWL I don't recall.
COPA: Do you recall what you wanted to say to Gavin that day?
CSW: No.
COPA: Stefan said you discussed imperfections in the code.
CSW: I don't know. I hadn't slept for over 24 hours at that point.
COPA: Back to signing sessions and your 2nd witness statement. You describe the set up. Sourced from Bitcoin Core website. You said before you didn't need all of it because X
CSW: Well, sort of. You need to show you haven't modified the software or the blockchain itself with throw errors.
COPA: The coin generation on early blocks shows full pub keys so you don't need the full software.
CSW: The criticism would be that it could be fake software. If you do the whole chain, you can prove you haven't used the wrong algorithm. If you download the whole chain, you demonstrate that the software is correct and that the right keys are used.
COPA: You said here that you downloaded the whole chain, but that would be time consuming and unnecessary.
CSW: You can sign without, but it couldn't be trusted the same way without the whole chain.
COPA: You say here that you transferred sig from Windows to Linux machine.
CSW: Yes, demonstrating that the sig is valid on multiple machines.
COPA: Mickeljohn says the VM added nothing to integrity.
CSW: She's incorrect. Even BTC Core say on their website that downloading the whole chain is a way of validating everything.
COPA: This is a matter for experts.
CSW: [smirks]
COPA: On Rory Cellen-Jones. You use your own laptop here. What was the text for signing?
CSW: I'm saying the more accurate version is full path. Sartre.text shows more, but this is a shortened. I don't recall the content precisely. BBC filmed it all, but when requested, it was "lost" apparently.
COPA: BBC is conspiring against you too?
CSW: Rory is a BTC guy and wants a cypherpunk Satoshi too.
COPA: He's a respected science journalist!
CSW: He's very biased. 98.9% of all blockchain transactions are on BSV. Rory reports the opposite.
COPA: It would be simple for someone of your experience to output a simple string.
CSW: I demonstrated the app, the full path, and they had the ability to see the whole process.
COPA: And they didn't document it?
CSW: They did. You can see shots from front and behind my screen. They had it. I validated the hashes in front of them and externally validated it. I would have had to set up a fake red hat site to do all of what I did on the BBC.
COPA: But the journalists say otherwise.
CSW: Stefan was in the room, and Jon Matonis was there too.
COPA: Stefan and Jon aren't showing this.
CSW: Jon has a public blog explaining this though. Stefan will be testifying. And there's video evidence from the BBC that they video'd my screen.
COPA: You could have just put a signature on the screen very simply so they could validate on their system.
CSW: that's precisely what we did with Gavin.
COPA: On their computer!
CSW: It was a brand new computer with a fresh install.
COPA: Rather than this complex approach. The simple approach would have been to put it on a USB stick.
CSW: I wanted to control the process to be sure that my work would be included first.
COPA: The journalists disagreed.
CSW: Journalists isn't just blogs. It should be documenting the whole thing.
COPA: Moving on from your expertise on journalism, Gavin just came off a red eye flight and was exhausted.
CSW: He seemed excited to me.
COPA: Gavin wanted a second laptop, right?
CSW: Yes, Gavin didn't want me to take his home, but the process was a new laptop in a sealed box. Had to set up the environment together.
COPA: You were on the hotel wifi, but also a third party hot spot.
CSW: I don't know where the wifi came from.
COPA: Did you or Gavin download windows and electrum?
CSW: We shared in some parts, but I think he did the OS.
COPA: Electrum says there was no download at the time due to SSL
CSW: At the time, SSL was a little different with a little green lock for security. Now, it's a little different. They would sign up for secure certificates.
COPA: You said you weren't sure if you downloaded from site or from Github.
CSW: Github is linked from the site. I don't recall exactly what it was now.
COPA: You said you saw the site.
CSW: Yeah, you can download from the site or click through to the Github, so I don't remember what we did.
COPA: Gavin verified the hashes for the download?
CSW: Yes, I recall the validation.
COPA: Gavin said in Kleiman that he hadn't
CSW: The download was verified. Maybe he didn't validate the PGP when prompted.
COPA: You gave the USB to Gavin and it was verified?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Gavin says you verified it.
CSW: What happened was the first attempt didn't validate. One wrong character will make it fail. We did have to correct it in the tool.
COPA: Gavin said it was his favorite number is 11 CSW and the error was CSW was missed.
CSW: That seems right, but I don't recall exactly.
COPA: Why did you need to add it?
CSW: It makes it more likely that something wasn't planted if it didn't validate the first time but did work when fixed.
COPA: So you could modify Electrum to validate anything with CSW added?
CSW: It was Gavin's USB and Electrum from the Electrum site.
COPA: Staging this would have been easy for you?
CSW: No. I am one of 5 people with global malware certification. It could have been done, but it would have been extremely difficult.
COPA: You could create an Electrum fake to make this work.
CSW: If I controlled the machine ahead of time, maybe.
COPA: Gavin didn't agree though
CSW: It would have brought up a huge red marker if it was a fake site.
COPA: Experts agree you could have done this easily.
CSW: Nickeljohn isn't an expert in this. Gao isn't either. They aren't experts in malware.
COPA: You chose experts who weren't qualified?
CSW: He's an expert on bitcoin. We don't have a malware expert in this case.
COPA: You didn't request more experts?
CSW: My expert was rejected.
COPA: Your recollection differs from Gavin's specifically on things that would have helped you fake this.
CSW: This was 7 years ago. Gavin watched the whole process.
COPA: Court can form it's own view [Hough getting very fussy here. Needs a break? A nap?] You have said you destroyed the hard drive after this?
CSW: When back from the hospital, I don't recall exactly, but yes. I overreacted. I don't know if you have ever been angry, but I don't recall exactly how it went down.
COPA: How was it destroyed?
CSW: I threw it down, but I don't recall all of the particulars.
COPA: Why did you though? Being autistic triggered a heightened emotional response.
CSW: Yep
COPA: You say in Granath that there were two drives that were destroyed. You say confidently that you stomped one and struck the other with a hammer.
CSW: I did.
COPA: So there's a difference in recollection.
CSW: Not really. I threw it, hammered it... Either way, it was smashed when I was incredibly angry.
COPA: You said in Granath that you did it because bitcoin isn't encrypted and that you wanted to prove cypherpunk isn't the purpose of bitcoin. That is different than an impulsive smashing.
CSW: No, the impulse was triggered by my passion for UK law and justice.
COPA: That's a different thing.
CSW: Not for me. My anger came from my focus on that goal. My life's work.
CSW: Later a meeting was scheduled with Hearn where it was discussed a different sighash method was used.
CSW: Hearn was probing into my research, yes. He was looking through my patents.
COPA: He was asking about bitcoin, not your patents. He wanted to know if you were Satoshi.
CSW: No, he later filed a patent on what he was asking. on iDaemon...
COPA: You have asserted rights over the white paper, database rights, passing off rights...
CSW: passing off on the name is a different issue.
COPA: In 2021, you instructed Ontier to tell people to stop hosting the white paper.
CSW: Yes, if they were involved in cryptocurrency scams.
COPA: You have been asserting those rights and defamation claims since then.
CSW: There was a round of attacks funded by Dorsey and the Lightning Torch saying my patents should be taken...
COPA: I asked you if you pursued defamation claims.
CSW: Let's re-read your question. I did defamation claims about people actively attacking me and calling my system a fraud. They went around and got BSV delisted and campaigning that everything about BSV was a fraud. Not about the Satoshi thing.
COPA: the court can form their own opinion [Hough visibly shaking... Doesn't deal with pressure well :(] You were threatening people.
CSW: I told the truth about CZ who has now been charged with global crimes including terrorism. I was early, but not wrong in my criticism.
COPA: You said cybercrime legislation to anyone undermining bitcoin. It's anyone who wants to run an alternative protocol.
CSW: Taproot was introduced to anonymize transactions. When things like that were introduced, it was so they could do crime more easily.
COPA: Ayre joined you in troll hunting meetings in a tweet.
CSW: I don't follow him on twitter.
COPA: Here he is with his arm around you polishing muskets. You don't recall?
CSW: I recall meeting to discuss going after the Lightning Torch people.
COPA: "Just waiting for a volunteer to bankrupt themselves. Who will be this moron?" From Ayre. He wants to bankrupt people who dispute you as Satoshi.
CSW: Ayre supports me, but I don't read his tweets.
COPA: Are you a follower of Ayre on Twitter?
CSW: I don't know. I don't run the twitter. nChain does.
COPA: Does he have a controlling stake in twitter?
CSW: I don't know his percentage. He owns companies.
COPA: Is he an investor?
CSW: Yes. Specifically, I know he is invested in nChain.
COPA: And he funds you
CSW: I get consulting fees, and previously a salary.
COPA: Zafar Ali says nChain was a funder of litigation.
CSW: That's against Ager-Hanssen.
COPA: No, it's about the mock trial.
CSW: On 10 November, Zafar was out.
COPA: You realize Calvin wants to benefit from litigation by investing in BSV.
CSW: I don't know
COPA: He tweets here that the market roars for BSV because of your liklihood to win. He says he rarely talks tokens, he said buy. Watch what happens when I make my real buy. He's talking about BSV isn't he?
CSW: Looks like it, yes.
COPA: Email from Calvin to you after the mock trial. Are you aware he sent this?
CSW: No.
COPA: He says Craig being Satoshi is obvious to anyone smart. He wants you to sign. He says you can't win if you don't sign at Harvard. He's trying to push you to sign.
CSW: I don't recall that, and we're still dealing with each other. He knows I wouldn't do that.
COPA: Here's a paper trail of your trust mentioned.
CSW: I'm not a trustee, and I haven't sent him anything.
COPA: He's saying he's pissing away his kids' inheritance. isn't he?
CSW: I haven't seen this email, and I'm working with nChain still. CAH and Zafar put together.
COPA: This is an email from Calvin.
CSW: Doesn't sound like it.
COPA: You are saying Ayre isn't giving you support?
CSW: I sold shares for money. Not direct funding.
COPA: He says he's the only one between you and soup kitchen.
CSW: This isn't real. I won my contempt cases. and CAH didn't have anything to do with them. The content here doesn't sound like Calvin and it isn't true.
COPA: I'm looking nervously to my left, but I won't go more than 15 minutes longer after lunch.
BREAK TIME
CSW: I have known Stefan for years. He wouldn't have a reason to believe something wasn't me. The only reason these were put in at all was because Kleiman case demanded everything.
COPA: Don't tell us anything privileged.
COPA: Rob email asking about Matonis interview and asking what Jon is allowed to talk about.
CSW: This was the day I attempted suicide. There were emails sent while I was unconscious...
COPA: This was the morning so, not in the hospital yet.
Mellor: Let's see if any emails are sent while you're in the hospital before we speculate.
COPA: Moving on. Stefan's account says you had a call with Gavin on the phone discussing moving coin.
CSW: I don't recall.
COPA: He says it was on speaker in his presence.
CSWL I don't recall.
COPA: Do you recall what you wanted to say to Gavin that day?
CSW: No.
COPA: Stefan said you discussed imperfections in the code.
CSW: I don't know. I hadn't slept for over 24 hours at that point.
COPA: Back to signing sessions and your 2nd witness statement. You describe the set up. Sourced from Bitcoin Core website. You said before you didn't need all of it because X
CSW: Well, sort of. You need to show you haven't modified the software or the blockchain itself with throw errors.
COPA: The coin generation on early blocks shows full pub keys so you don't need the full software.
CSW: The criticism would be that it could be fake software. If you do the whole chain, you can prove you haven't used the wrong algorithm. If you download the whole chain, you demonstrate that the software is correct and that the right keys are used.
COPA: You said here that you downloaded the whole chain, but that would be time consuming and unnecessary.
CSW: You can sign without, but it couldn't be trusted the same way without the whole chain.
COPA: You say here that you transferred sig from Windows to Linux machine.
CSW: Yes, demonstrating that the sig is valid on multiple machines.
COPA: Mickeljohn says the VM added nothing to integrity.
CSW: She's incorrect. Even BTC Core say on their website that downloading the whole chain is a way of validating everything.
COPA: This is a matter for experts.
CSW: [smirks]
COPA: On Rory Cellen-Jones. You use your own laptop here. What was the text for signing?
CSW: I'm saying the more accurate version is full path. Sartre.text shows more, but this is a shortened. I don't recall the content precisely. BBC filmed it all, but when requested, it was "lost" apparently.
COPA: BBC is conspiring against you too?
CSW: Rory is a BTC guy and wants a cypherpunk Satoshi too.
COPA: He's a respected science journalist!
CSW: He's very biased. 98.9% of all blockchain transactions are on BSV. Rory reports the opposite.
COPA: It would be simple for someone of your experience to output a simple string.
CSW: I demonstrated the app, the full path, and they had the ability to see the whole process.
COPA: And they didn't document it?
CSW: They did. You can see shots from front and behind my screen. They had it. I validated the hashes in front of them and externally validated it. I would have had to set up a fake red hat site to do all of what I did on the BBC.
COPA: But the journalists say otherwise.
CSW: Stefan was in the room, and Jon Matonis was there too.
COPA: Stefan and Jon aren't showing this.
CSW: Jon has a public blog explaining this though. Stefan will be testifying. And there's video evidence from the BBC that they video'd my screen.
COPA: You could have just put a signature on the screen very simply so they could validate on their system.
CSW: that's precisely what we did with Gavin.
COPA: On their computer!
CSW: It was a brand new computer with a fresh install.
COPA: Rather than this complex approach. The simple approach would have been to put it on a USB stick.
CSW: I wanted to control the process to be sure that my work would be included first.
COPA: The journalists disagreed.
CSW: Journalists isn't just blogs. It should be documenting the whole thing.
COPA: Moving on from your expertise on journalism, Gavin just came off a red eye flight and was exhausted.
CSW: He seemed excited to me.
COPA: Gavin wanted a second laptop, right?
CSW: Yes, Gavin didn't want me to take his home, but the process was a new laptop in a sealed box. Had to set up the environment together.
COPA: You were on the hotel wifi, but also a third party hot spot.
CSW: I don't know where the wifi came from.
COPA: Did you or Gavin download windows and electrum?
CSW: We shared in some parts, but I think he did the OS.
COPA: Electrum says there was no download at the time due to SSL
CSW: At the time, SSL was a little different with a little green lock for security. Now, it's a little different. They would sign up for secure certificates.
COPA: You said you weren't sure if you downloaded from site or from Github.
CSW: Github is linked from the site. I don't recall exactly what it was now.
COPA: You said you saw the site.
CSW: Yeah, you can download from the site or click through to the Github, so I don't remember what we did.
COPA: Gavin verified the hashes for the download?
CSW: Yes, I recall the validation.
COPA: Gavin said in Kleiman that he hadn't
CSW: The download was verified. Maybe he didn't validate the PGP when prompted.
COPA: You gave the USB to Gavin and it was verified?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Gavin says you verified it.
CSW: What happened was the first attempt didn't validate. One wrong character will make it fail. We did have to correct it in the tool.
COPA: Gavin said it was his favorite number is 11 CSW and the error was CSW was missed.
CSW: That seems right, but I don't recall exactly.
COPA: Why did you need to add it?
CSW: It makes it more likely that something wasn't planted if it didn't validate the first time but did work when fixed.
COPA: So you could modify Electrum to validate anything with CSW added?
CSW: It was Gavin's USB and Electrum from the Electrum site.
COPA: Staging this would have been easy for you?
CSW: No. I am one of 5 people with global malware certification. It could have been done, but it would have been extremely difficult.
COPA: You could create an Electrum fake to make this work.
CSW: If I controlled the machine ahead of time, maybe.
COPA: Gavin didn't agree though
CSW: It would have brought up a huge red marker if it was a fake site.
COPA: Experts agree you could have done this easily.
CSW: Nickeljohn isn't an expert in this. Gao isn't either. They aren't experts in malware.
COPA: You chose experts who weren't qualified?
CSW: He's an expert on bitcoin. We don't have a malware expert in this case.
COPA: You didn't request more experts?
CSW: My expert was rejected.
COPA: Your recollection differs from Gavin's specifically on things that would have helped you fake this.
CSW: This was 7 years ago. Gavin watched the whole process.
COPA: Court can form it's own view [Hough getting very fussy here. Needs a break? A nap?] You have said you destroyed the hard drive after this?
CSW: When back from the hospital, I don't recall exactly, but yes. I overreacted. I don't know if you have ever been angry, but I don't recall exactly how it went down.
COPA: How was it destroyed?
CSW: I threw it down, but I don't recall all of the particulars.
COPA: Why did you though? Being autistic triggered a heightened emotional response.
CSW: Yep
COPA: You say in Granath that there were two drives that were destroyed. You say confidently that you stomped one and struck the other with a hammer.
CSW: I did.
COPA: So there's a difference in recollection.
CSW: Not really. I threw it, hammered it... Either way, it was smashed when I was incredibly angry.
COPA: You said in Granath that you did it because bitcoin isn't encrypted and that you wanted to prove cypherpunk isn't the purpose of bitcoin. That is different than an impulsive smashing.
CSW: No, the impulse was triggered by my passion for UK law and justice.
COPA: That's a different thing.
CSW: Not for me. My anger came from my focus on that goal. My life's work.
CSW: Later a meeting was scheduled with Hearn where it was discussed a different sighash method was used.
CSW: Hearn was probing into my research, yes. He was looking through my patents.
COPA: He was asking about bitcoin, not your patents. He wanted to know if you were Satoshi.
CSW: No, he later filed a patent on what he was asking. on iDaemon...
COPA: You have asserted rights over the white paper, database rights, passing off rights...
CSW: passing off on the name is a different issue.
COPA: In 2021, you instructed Ontier to tell people to stop hosting the white paper.
CSW: Yes, if they were involved in cryptocurrency scams.
COPA: You have been asserting those rights and defamation claims since then.
CSW: There was a round of attacks funded by Dorsey and the Lightning Torch saying my patents should be taken...
COPA: I asked you if you pursued defamation claims.
CSW: Let's re-read your question. I did defamation claims about people actively attacking me and calling my system a fraud. They went around and got BSV delisted and campaigning that everything about BSV was a fraud. Not about the Satoshi thing.
COPA: the court can form their own opinion [Hough visibly shaking... Doesn't deal with pressure well :(] You were threatening people.
CSW: I told the truth about CZ who has now been charged with global crimes including terrorism. I was early, but not wrong in my criticism.
COPA: You said cybercrime legislation to anyone undermining bitcoin. It's anyone who wants to run an alternative protocol.
CSW: Taproot was introduced to anonymize transactions. When things like that were introduced, it was so they could do crime more easily.
COPA: Ayre joined you in troll hunting meetings in a tweet.
CSW: I don't follow him on twitter.
COPA: Here he is with his arm around you polishing muskets. You don't recall?
CSW: I recall meeting to discuss going after the Lightning Torch people.
COPA: "Just waiting for a volunteer to bankrupt themselves. Who will be this moron?" From Ayre. He wants to bankrupt people who dispute you as Satoshi.
CSW: Ayre supports me, but I don't read his tweets.
COPA: Are you a follower of Ayre on Twitter?
CSW: I don't know. I don't run the twitter. nChain does.
COPA: Does he have a controlling stake in twitter?
CSW: I don't know his percentage. He owns companies.
COPA: Is he an investor?
CSW: Yes. Specifically, I know he is invested in nChain.
COPA: And he funds you
CSW: I get consulting fees, and previously a salary.
COPA: Zafar Ali says nChain was a funder of litigation.
CSW: That's against Ager-Hanssen.
COPA: No, it's about the mock trial.
CSW: On 10 November, Zafar was out.
COPA: You realize Calvin wants to benefit from litigation by investing in BSV.
CSW: I don't know
COPA: He tweets here that the market roars for BSV because of your liklihood to win. He says he rarely talks tokens, he said buy. Watch what happens when I make my real buy. He's talking about BSV isn't he?
CSW: Looks like it, yes.
COPA: Email from Calvin to you after the mock trial. Are you aware he sent this?
CSW: No.
COPA: He says Craig being Satoshi is obvious to anyone smart. He wants you to sign. He says you can't win if you don't sign at Harvard. He's trying to push you to sign.
CSW: I don't recall that, and we're still dealing with each other. He knows I wouldn't do that.
COPA: Here's a paper trail of your trust mentioned.
CSW: I'm not a trustee, and I haven't sent him anything.
COPA: He's saying he's pissing away his kids' inheritance. isn't he?
CSW: I haven't seen this email, and I'm working with nChain still. CAH and Zafar put together.
COPA: This is an email from Calvin.
CSW: Doesn't sound like it.
COPA: You are saying Ayre isn't giving you support?
CSW: I sold shares for money. Not direct funding.
COPA: He says he's the only one between you and soup kitchen.
CSW: This isn't real. I won my contempt cases. and CAH didn't have anything to do with them. The content here doesn't sound like Calvin and it isn't true.
COPA: I'm looking nervously to my left, but I won't go more than 15 minutes longer after lunch.
BREAK TIME
Here's the video summary for subscribers. It's only $2.99/month to subscribe! And you get two video summaries per day during the Satoshi Trial.
https://x.com/kurtwuckertjr/status/1757757859784233420?s=20
Tips appreciated handcash.me/kurt
BACK!
COPA: New Topic about proof. Transcript from Kleiman. You're asked about your lawyer's argument that Dave wasn't involved in bitcoin or early mining because he hadn't told others. You said you told all kinds of people. But the partnership was secret according to Ira. You said 300-400 people in Aus knew I was Satoshi.
CSW: May I indulge. There's a false premise here. My premise isn't that I want to prove that I'm Satoshi. I didn't want this. Still don't. But I AM SATOSHI. I don't want my life's work misrepresented. So people going on about what I said. I didn't want to come out. I want to be left alone to invent. This week, I wrote 3 patents. I'm doing 5 doctorates. I never wanted in 2016 to be out or out now. I just can't help it because I am, but no matter the outcome of this case, I'll hit 10,000 patents. But I never ever want anyone to believe me. I am an ordained Wesleyan pastor. I only want people to believe in God and stop representing my invention with BTC.
COPA: That's disputed by you asserting your claim to be Satoshi. Stefan, your backer, said...
CSW: Wait. Stefan has never been a backer at all. Even indirectly. Ignatius Pang was involved. Guys like Rob saw the genesis file. While it wasn't "bitcoin" it was "timecoin." I implemented systems with Dave Bridges and Mark Archibald.
COPA: You've called no BDO people though.
CSW: Neville was called. His health is failing. My Uncle's health is failing and he's had 2 strokes. People are getting old.
COPA: No MS or PR0nHub people.
CSW: I don't have their info anymore. and these people don't want to be involved because of hate mail and death threats. There are funded campaigns to silence my witnesses.
COPA: there's no public domain originals.
CSW: It's known that Satoshi's email was hacked 10 years ago, and the public info has been taken over. This is known.
COPA: You don't have any names of people who received bitcoin not in public.
CSW: I'm not good at people.
COPA: You haven't shown us proof of buying bitcoin domains.
CSW: I have in my evidence.
COPA: No proof of old bitcoin work except hand-written?
CSW: Those are proof of my longterm work in bitcoin.
COPA: But no genuine proof.
CSW: No cypherpunk crypto proof.
COPA: There's no proof of anything.
CSW: I have the most and oldest patents in the entire industry. Mr Maxwell and Mr Back were assumed to be Satoshi based on a single patent. And I have thousands. If I don't win this case, I'll continue to build.
COPA: You have blamed lawyers for lots of things in these proceedings and in Granath.
CSW: That's why I fired them, yes.
COPA: They chose to disregard your instructions?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: And Ontier?
CSW: Yes, they changed a header on a doc...
Grabner: The docs speak for themselves. This line of discussion leads to privilege issues. He could do this in closing.
COPA: Well, it matters with questions coming soon. If you lose, you'll still say you are.
CSW: I just am.
COPA: You'll continue to flex Satoshi's IP rights.
CSW: I don't require being Satoshi for my IP to matter.
COPA: Explicitly, you'd still make claims to be Satoshi and having IP rights.
CSW: I'd move to my patents. Taproot is based on 3 nChain patents and its in the core of BTC. We would seek action here and in the US. I'll force them to shut down via AWS and notify of the patent violations. If I lose this, there are aproximately 80 patent cases coming.
COPA: You'll keep going?
CSW: I don't care what you think. I don't give a rat's. If I'm ignored, I'll invent. If I'm left alone, I'll leave them alone.
COPA: Our case is that you're not the author of the white paper of bitcoin.
CSW: I'm the person who invented the bitcoin system, the hash chain system and thousands of patents.
COPA: This is a lie and hoax.
CSW: We are spending millions per month on scaling when I could be pumping for profits like your clients.
COPA: This is a forgery and lie
CSW: Nope.
COPA: These are my questions.
COPA: New Topic about proof. Transcript from Kleiman. You're asked about your lawyer's argument that Dave wasn't involved in bitcoin or early mining because he hadn't told others. You said you told all kinds of people. But the partnership was secret according to Ira. You said 300-400 people in Aus knew I was Satoshi.
CSW: May I indulge. There's a false premise here. My premise isn't that I want to prove that I'm Satoshi. I didn't want this. Still don't. But I AM SATOSHI. I don't want my life's work misrepresented. So people going on about what I said. I didn't want to come out. I want to be left alone to invent. This week, I wrote 3 patents. I'm doing 5 doctorates. I never wanted in 2016 to be out or out now. I just can't help it because I am, but no matter the outcome of this case, I'll hit 10,000 patents. But I never ever want anyone to believe me. I am an ordained Wesleyan pastor. I only want people to believe in God and stop representing my invention with BTC.
COPA: That's disputed by you asserting your claim to be Satoshi. Stefan, your backer, said...
CSW: Wait. Stefan has never been a backer at all. Even indirectly. Ignatius Pang was involved. Guys like Rob saw the genesis file. While it wasn't "bitcoin" it was "timecoin." I implemented systems with Dave Bridges and Mark Archibald.
COPA: You've called no BDO people though.
CSW: Neville was called. His health is failing. My Uncle's health is failing and he's had 2 strokes. People are getting old.
COPA: No MS or PR0nHub people.
CSW: I don't have their info anymore. and these people don't want to be involved because of hate mail and death threats. There are funded campaigns to silence my witnesses.
COPA: there's no public domain originals.
CSW: It's known that Satoshi's email was hacked 10 years ago, and the public info has been taken over. This is known.
COPA: You don't have any names of people who received bitcoin not in public.
CSW: I'm not good at people.
COPA: You haven't shown us proof of buying bitcoin domains.
CSW: I have in my evidence.
COPA: No proof of old bitcoin work except hand-written?
CSW: Those are proof of my longterm work in bitcoin.
COPA: But no genuine proof.
CSW: No cypherpunk crypto proof.
COPA: There's no proof of anything.
CSW: I have the most and oldest patents in the entire industry. Mr Maxwell and Mr Back were assumed to be Satoshi based on a single patent. And I have thousands. If I don't win this case, I'll continue to build.
COPA: You have blamed lawyers for lots of things in these proceedings and in Granath.
CSW: That's why I fired them, yes.
COPA: They chose to disregard your instructions?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: And Ontier?
CSW: Yes, they changed a header on a doc...
Grabner: The docs speak for themselves. This line of discussion leads to privilege issues. He could do this in closing.
COPA: Well, it matters with questions coming soon. If you lose, you'll still say you are.
CSW: I just am.
COPA: You'll continue to flex Satoshi's IP rights.
CSW: I don't require being Satoshi for my IP to matter.
COPA: Explicitly, you'd still make claims to be Satoshi and having IP rights.
CSW: I'd move to my patents. Taproot is based on 3 nChain patents and its in the core of BTC. We would seek action here and in the US. I'll force them to shut down via AWS and notify of the patent violations. If I lose this, there are aproximately 80 patent cases coming.
COPA: You'll keep going?
CSW: I don't care what you think. I don't give a rat's. If I'm ignored, I'll invent. If I'm left alone, I'll leave them alone.
COPA: Our case is that you're not the author of the white paper of bitcoin.
CSW: I'm the person who invented the bitcoin system, the hash chain system and thousands of patents.
COPA: This is a lie and hoax.
CSW: We are spending millions per month on scaling when I could be pumping for profits like your clients.
COPA: This is a forgery and lie
CSW: Nope.
COPA: These are my questions.
Gunning for the devs: You said billions of dollars.
CSW: the form asked for value. It can be positive or negative.
Devs: Their wealth would diminish if you won.
CSW: Yes.
Devs: Are you claiming remedy if you win in the Core Dev case?
CSW: I want everything after cost to go to charity.
Devs: You are seeking monetary remedy?
CSW: I will seek to cover damages from losses. Not to me. I won't accept money from BTC. It will go to third parties.
Devs: Are you making a claim for payment of money?
CSW: Not to me. If you follow British law. If you agree to admit that bitcoin has changed from the white paper, pay my original offer and give that money to charity, and I'll sign off.
Mellor: It's a simple question. Will they have to write a check for anything other than cost to anyone? Will you insist?
CSW: My Lord, if they implement the changes so that British law is supported, I will forgo any value. If the current legislation is implemented, I want no money.
Mellor: Where?
CSW: Cryptocurrency legislation in the UK. I will explain in full with them very happily. No more money laundering. No more anon stuff like Taproot. No more money to Hamas. If that's agreed, I'm good.
Devs: Can we move on? Here's a version from the Github website from 9 years ago. It refers to how to upgrade. Heading says rebranding to Bitcoin Core. to reduce confusion between Bitcoin the network and Bitcoin the software. One of the things in 0.9.0 is that the name of the reference client was changed to Bitcoin Core. Capital B and C.
CSW: Yes.
Devs: You say that over time, the devs adopted the term UTXO. Experts agree that that started in 2012.
CSW: It was used in 2009, but evolved over time like "block chain"
Devs: It started in 2012
CSW: Nope. It was less common.
Devs: It was first used in dev chat logs to use UTXO in 2012.
CSW: Unspent TX out was also U-transout and other things.
Devs: Can you point to any evidence?
CSW: Not while sitting here.
Devs: 2009 code file called main.cpp with checkblock. You see?
CSW: Yes
Devs: This was to check and see if a block was valid?
CSW: Yes.
Devs: The first line of defense against invalid blocks?
CSW: Before you get a block, you have txs. Txs are broadcast. The first line of defense is validating the txs.
Devs: checkblock had 6 checks?
CSW: I'm not sure how many at the time.
Devs: You see it says size limits
CSW: I see it.
Devs: Then the timestamp check
CSW: Yes, a moving average process. Hidden or selfish mining could be mitigated with this.
Devs: Checking the timestamp and that the first tx was coinbase?
CSW: Yes
Devs: Then txs?
CSW: Yes
Devs: What does it check?
CSW: That it follows the rules. Bitcoin uses script. It checks that keys, policies and such are all followed. Input and output structure is correct. Are there ECDSA rules followed and properly signed...
Devs: Let's see what checktransactions actually is. 3 checks only. Basic checks. Checking that there is at least 1 input and 1 output, that the spend isn't negative and if the coinbase tx included that the scriptsig is valid... No checking ECDSA.
CSW: It calls the other functions.
Devs: You're wrong
CSW: Your diagram is hierarchical. It does something that calls another thing.
Devs: You don't know a key aspect of the node software.
CSW: You keep interrupting my explanation of what is happening.
Devs: We can see a function for processblock and checkblock and asecondary check is acceptblock. it's in acceptblock that sigs are checked.
CSW:L Like I said, each function calls a new function. The diagram shows one function and subfunctions.
Devs: I'm afraid you're wrong. I can take you there.
CSW: the block includes the full check and each tx in a binary tree structure. You're pulling out each individual call and acting like they're separate. checkblock doesn't work without the other functions.
[Very Mawellian line of technobabble and malicious specificity trick right here]
Devs: You see here on the page with connectblock defined.
CSW: And the other functions
Devs: And you see the rest of the signature function. Sig verification is part of acceptblock not checkblock.
CSW: I haven't looked at the original code since probably 2017. Do I recall every single thing? no. But I can walk you through the diagram.
Devs: Satoshi would remember. YOU don't know.
CSW: I could walk you through it in my environment.
Devs: See pull request number [missed it] switch to headers based sync. You'll see proposed changes to the main.cpp file. There are changes with green lines in the margin. Green means new or moved code.
CSW: Um...
Devs: You don't recgnize Github?
CSW: I don't use GitHub
Devs: BSV is on Github
CSW: BSV is maintained by staff .
Devs: Check of the timestamps here.
CSW: the block won't be validated unless the block hash is validated first.
Devs: this was modularizing the function without needing the whole of the block.
CSW: Yes by Sipa in 2013.
Devs: Not in Satoshi's code?
CSW: No, and not sure where it came into the code.
[Pieter Wuille Visible in the background.]
Devs: Going to your reliance doc. Terminology "bitcoin core" was changed.
CSW: No, client software would be generally called "bitcoin core." Adopting it like a title is different.
Devs: Not in 2008
CSW: this is explaining the difference between the node and SPV
Devs: this is checkblock and checkblock header
CSW: Which is the difference between full client and SPV. It's a version that doesn't have all of the validation. It's about SPV as defined in the white paper checking just the headers.
Devs: checkblockheader isn't in the white paper.
CSW: there's no code in the white paper. Simplified Payment Verification is in the white paper. It's a light node.
Devs: Nobody used checkblockheader before added by Dr. Wuille
CSW: I don't know when he did it. But this is key in SPV.
Devs: Andresen didn't either?
CSW: I gave him the patches for SPV.
Devs: there's no reference
CSW: core is the main client. SPV in the white paper doesn't reference code. SPV was being worked on before release of bitcoin.
Devs: We won't find this anywhere
CSW: It's described in timecoin.
Devs: You refer to a TXpool that didn't exist until later.
CSW: You're assuming ideas don't exist until they're coded.
Devs: If you were Satoshi, you would know etc...
CSW: the form asked for value. It can be positive or negative.
Devs: Their wealth would diminish if you won.
CSW: Yes.
Devs: Are you claiming remedy if you win in the Core Dev case?
CSW: I want everything after cost to go to charity.
Devs: You are seeking monetary remedy?
CSW: I will seek to cover damages from losses. Not to me. I won't accept money from BTC. It will go to third parties.
Devs: Are you making a claim for payment of money?
CSW: Not to me. If you follow British law. If you agree to admit that bitcoin has changed from the white paper, pay my original offer and give that money to charity, and I'll sign off.
Mellor: It's a simple question. Will they have to write a check for anything other than cost to anyone? Will you insist?
CSW: My Lord, if they implement the changes so that British law is supported, I will forgo any value. If the current legislation is implemented, I want no money.
Mellor: Where?
CSW: Cryptocurrency legislation in the UK. I will explain in full with them very happily. No more money laundering. No more anon stuff like Taproot. No more money to Hamas. If that's agreed, I'm good.
Devs: Can we move on? Here's a version from the Github website from 9 years ago. It refers to how to upgrade. Heading says rebranding to Bitcoin Core. to reduce confusion between Bitcoin the network and Bitcoin the software. One of the things in 0.9.0 is that the name of the reference client was changed to Bitcoin Core. Capital B and C.
CSW: Yes.
Devs: You say that over time, the devs adopted the term UTXO. Experts agree that that started in 2012.
CSW: It was used in 2009, but evolved over time like "block chain"
Devs: It started in 2012
CSW: Nope. It was less common.
Devs: It was first used in dev chat logs to use UTXO in 2012.
CSW: Unspent TX out was also U-transout and other things.
Devs: Can you point to any evidence?
CSW: Not while sitting here.
Devs: 2009 code file called main.cpp with checkblock. You see?
CSW: Yes
Devs: This was to check and see if a block was valid?
CSW: Yes.
Devs: The first line of defense against invalid blocks?
CSW: Before you get a block, you have txs. Txs are broadcast. The first line of defense is validating the txs.
Devs: checkblock had 6 checks?
CSW: I'm not sure how many at the time.
Devs: You see it says size limits
CSW: I see it.
Devs: Then the timestamp check
CSW: Yes, a moving average process. Hidden or selfish mining could be mitigated with this.
Devs: Checking the timestamp and that the first tx was coinbase?
CSW: Yes
Devs: Then txs?
CSW: Yes
Devs: What does it check?
CSW: That it follows the rules. Bitcoin uses script. It checks that keys, policies and such are all followed. Input and output structure is correct. Are there ECDSA rules followed and properly signed...
Devs: Let's see what checktransactions actually is. 3 checks only. Basic checks. Checking that there is at least 1 input and 1 output, that the spend isn't negative and if the coinbase tx included that the scriptsig is valid... No checking ECDSA.
CSW: It calls the other functions.
Devs: You're wrong
CSW: Your diagram is hierarchical. It does something that calls another thing.
Devs: You don't know a key aspect of the node software.
CSW: You keep interrupting my explanation of what is happening.
Devs: We can see a function for processblock and checkblock and asecondary check is acceptblock. it's in acceptblock that sigs are checked.
CSW:L Like I said, each function calls a new function. The diagram shows one function and subfunctions.
Devs: I'm afraid you're wrong. I can take you there.
CSW: the block includes the full check and each tx in a binary tree structure. You're pulling out each individual call and acting like they're separate. checkblock doesn't work without the other functions.
[Very Mawellian line of technobabble and malicious specificity trick right here]
Devs: You see here on the page with connectblock defined.
CSW: And the other functions
Devs: And you see the rest of the signature function. Sig verification is part of acceptblock not checkblock.
CSW: I haven't looked at the original code since probably 2017. Do I recall every single thing? no. But I can walk you through the diagram.
Devs: Satoshi would remember. YOU don't know.
CSW: I could walk you through it in my environment.
Devs: See pull request number [missed it] switch to headers based sync. You'll see proposed changes to the main.cpp file. There are changes with green lines in the margin. Green means new or moved code.
CSW: Um...
Devs: You don't recgnize Github?
CSW: I don't use GitHub
Devs: BSV is on Github
CSW: BSV is maintained by staff .
Devs: Check of the timestamps here.
CSW: the block won't be validated unless the block hash is validated first.
Devs: this was modularizing the function without needing the whole of the block.
CSW: Yes by Sipa in 2013.
Devs: Not in Satoshi's code?
CSW: No, and not sure where it came into the code.
[Pieter Wuille Visible in the background.]
Devs: Going to your reliance doc. Terminology "bitcoin core" was changed.
CSW: No, client software would be generally called "bitcoin core." Adopting it like a title is different.
Devs: Not in 2008
CSW: this is explaining the difference between the node and SPV
Devs: this is checkblock and checkblock header
CSW: Which is the difference between full client and SPV. It's a version that doesn't have all of the validation. It's about SPV as defined in the white paper checking just the headers.
Devs: checkblockheader isn't in the white paper.
CSW: there's no code in the white paper. Simplified Payment Verification is in the white paper. It's a light node.
Devs: Nobody used checkblockheader before added by Dr. Wuille
CSW: I don't know when he did it. But this is key in SPV.
Devs: Andresen didn't either?
CSW: I gave him the patches for SPV.
Devs: there's no reference
CSW: core is the main client. SPV in the white paper doesn't reference code. SPV was being worked on before release of bitcoin.
Devs: We won't find this anywhere
CSW: It's described in timecoin.
Devs: You refer to a TXpool that didn't exist until later.
CSW: You're assuming ideas don't exist until they're coded.
Devs: If you were Satoshi, you would know etc...
CSW: It's a standard term in my paper. Core didn't invent the terminology used in bitcoin.
Devs: Here's another reliance doc with metadata using the term UTXO in 2008.
CSW: It's a term used throughout my work.
Devs: This one predates 2007 from BDO saying UTXO.
CSW: Yes. I don't publish everything I write.
Devs: this is very compelling evidence that you submitted evidence that couldn't have happened in 2007.
CSW: You assume that only your people could have used words and terms.
Devs: did other people say UTXO? Did other people in bitcoin?
CSW: I didn't talk to a lot of bitcoin people.
Devs: You didn't talk to devs about the term UTXO.
CSW: It's a distributed timestamp server
Devs: Either the metadata and the content are forged
CSW: I created the content over 15 years ago
Devs: You forged this
CSW: I did not
Devs: Here's another reliance doc with metadata using the term UTXO in 2008.
CSW: It's a term used throughout my work.
Devs: This one predates 2007 from BDO saying UTXO.
CSW: Yes. I don't publish everything I write.
Devs: this is very compelling evidence that you submitted evidence that couldn't have happened in 2007.
CSW: You assume that only your people could have used words and terms.
Devs: did other people say UTXO? Did other people in bitcoin?
CSW: I didn't talk to a lot of bitcoin people.
Devs: You didn't talk to devs about the term UTXO.
CSW: It's a distributed timestamp server
Devs: Either the metadata and the content are forged
CSW: I created the content over 15 years ago
Devs: You forged this
CSW: I did not
Devs: New topic. MAx script size. Do you know what unsigned means
CSW: Basically, it's an unsigned variable. An integer...[CSW freezing] I'm unsure how to explain it here.
[someone audibly giggling off camera]
Devs: Do you recall a book by Dr Strauberg about C++ where it says it can't be negative.
CSW: That's a way to say it.
Devs: You don't see this being merged?
CSW: I recall me being behind it actually.
Devs: You're the Blue Matt?
CSW: No
Devs: The relevant commit is here. You see what it says.
CSW: Unsigned int?
Devs: Maxscript. You see it?
CSW: I do
Devs: This commit has a name
CSW: I don't use Git.
Devs: The script header file. So this limit existed
CSW: For a time, but could be updated just like block size or removescript.
Devs: Makes sense for clarity and such
CSW: Maybe. I didn't work around any of this.
Devs: On day 6 you read out a definition of transaction. The words you used include language from a couple of websites. Where did you get that from?
Mellor: You read it from your notes?
CSW: An atomic process is something I have said for a long time.
Devs: I found a quote on techtarget.
CSW: they're common terms
Devs: Don't look at your phone while on break!
CSW: I don't have it.
BREAK FOR FIVE
CSW: Basically, it's an unsigned variable. An integer...[CSW freezing] I'm unsure how to explain it here.
[someone audibly giggling off camera]
Devs: Do you recall a book by Dr Strauberg about C++ where it says it can't be negative.
CSW: That's a way to say it.
Devs: You don't see this being merged?
CSW: I recall me being behind it actually.
Devs: You're the Blue Matt?
CSW: No
Devs: The relevant commit is here. You see what it says.
CSW: Unsigned int?
Devs: Maxscript. You see it?
CSW: I do
Devs: This commit has a name
CSW: I don't use Git.
Devs: The script header file. So this limit existed
CSW: For a time, but could be updated just like block size or removescript.
Devs: Makes sense for clarity and such
CSW: Maybe. I didn't work around any of this.
Devs: On day 6 you read out a definition of transaction. The words you used include language from a couple of websites. Where did you get that from?
Mellor: You read it from your notes?
CSW: An atomic process is something I have said for a long time.
Devs: I found a quote on techtarget.
CSW: they're common terms
Devs: Don't look at your phone while on break!
CSW: I don't have it.
BREAK FOR FIVE
Gunning doing a fantastic job with his rhetoric here. While it's reasonable for Craig not to be aware of details from Pieter or Matt's code, Gunning's use of his time is MUCH better than Hough's.
Very rough segment for Craig.
Very rough segment for Craig.
Devs: Bacl to push value reduced by Satoshi from 5000 to 502 bytes.
CSW: there was an attack vulnerability and script was disabled temporarily.
Devs: Satoshi limited script here, yes?
CSW: There was communication about it being temporary.
Devs: You said BTC added and enforced this.
CSW: They have rigorously enforced this.
Devs: It wasn't BTC that placed a max size. It was Satoshi. You didn't know that because you're not Satoshi
CSW: It was said openly many times on stage that these things were temporary.
Devs: We can read what you said about disabling OP Codes. You say many opcodes were disabled.
CSW: I see that.
Devs: Here's a list in BSV of disabled opcodes
CSW: not all of them
Devs: Note OpLshift. Why that disabled?
CSW: Hadn't been security tested. It could make an overflow type of attack, it was suggested.
Devs: The background. Gavin said to Satoshi that some people were trying to get back txs into the chain. they caused Bitcoind to crash.
CSW: Yes.
Devs: Refers repeatedly to Lshift.
CSW: It was discussed here about the SVN system.
Devs: Here's the commit by Satoshi for the pushvalue thing. Satoshi inserted a section of code that had the effect that if they're used in a script, it'll put out a false output.
CSW: I pushed it, yes. Nut again, temporary.
Devs: There's a double bar here after OpCAT
CSW: Its concatenation of "or"...
Devs: So if Lshift was used, it would return false.
CSW: It would fail as false.
Devs: No OP2MUL, you didn't mention that this was pushed by Satoshi.
CSW: People were attacking the network. I pushed the changes from the devs who patched those things. But there's a distinction between temporarily changing vs removing the code or adding new opcodes.
Devs: you can see where you say this wasn't necessary here on OP2MUL. You say it should be easy to turn on.
CSW: YEs.
Devs: It's not turned on in BSV.
CSW: It was supposed to be, so I'll be angry if it isn't. [@Bitcoin_Beyond!]
Devs: We checked this morning, and it's disabled.
CSW: Well, I'll be talking to people.
Devs: This is a classic example showing you're not Satoshi.
CSW: I implemented the code then. But I don't do it now. I thought it was turned on because it should have been.
Devs: Satoshi was around for these changes.
CSW: I was around very little at that time. The attack on the network was one of my busiest times posting as Satoshi, but it's also when my marriage really fell apart and started disappearing, and the ATO stuff started at that point.
Devs: Satoshi wasn't distracted though.
CSW: A perfect example, it would be simple to increase the block size and I said that a checkpoint could be added.
Devs: Let's talk PGP keys. We looked at those details. Public key packet is here and subkey packet is ID'd here. You see it's Satoshi at GMX email.
CSW: That's ID typed manually
Devs: You suggested it was from Vistomail
CSW: It was created there in the server field but anythign could be added.
Devs: At this time they were using Linux. this PGP key was obviously a Windows system.
CSW: the header version is in there. There are multiple systems in Vistomail.
Devs: Ming is a windows system.
CSW: Yes
Devs: Version number and creation date sigclass is type [missed it]. OpenPGP doc authored by Hal
CSW: Yes
Devs: When you create the key, you ID the type you're creating.
CSW: Or default values.
Devs: but it can be what you want?
CSW: You set the algo at creation.
Devs: Not an encryption key?
CSW: Not DSA, no.
Devs: It's Satoshi saying he's associating his key with user ID which was Satoshi at GMX
CSW: With that address.
Devs: Self signature {my name X is tied to key]
CSW: Yes, when giving a key associating to give an encrypted packet between two people. It's saying you can trust the things corresponded are secure. I noted the same key shouldn't be used for signing and encryption, but it COULD be.
Devs: You see algo 17?
CSW: Yes
Devs: DSA?
CSW: It's for code signing. A code packet to encrypt and sign.
Devs: Not for encryption though.
CSW: It's encrypt and sign.
Devs: You're not right. Primary is for signing. subkey is for encrypting.
CSW: This is correct.
[PHONE RINGS]
CSW: there was an attack vulnerability and script was disabled temporarily.
Devs: Satoshi limited script here, yes?
CSW: There was communication about it being temporary.
Devs: You said BTC added and enforced this.
CSW: They have rigorously enforced this.
Devs: It wasn't BTC that placed a max size. It was Satoshi. You didn't know that because you're not Satoshi
CSW: It was said openly many times on stage that these things were temporary.
Devs: We can read what you said about disabling OP Codes. You say many opcodes were disabled.
CSW: I see that.
Devs: Here's a list in BSV of disabled opcodes
CSW: not all of them
Devs: Note OpLshift. Why that disabled?
CSW: Hadn't been security tested. It could make an overflow type of attack, it was suggested.
Devs: The background. Gavin said to Satoshi that some people were trying to get back txs into the chain. they caused Bitcoind to crash.
CSW: Yes.
Devs: Refers repeatedly to Lshift.
CSW: It was discussed here about the SVN system.
Devs: Here's the commit by Satoshi for the pushvalue thing. Satoshi inserted a section of code that had the effect that if they're used in a script, it'll put out a false output.
CSW: I pushed it, yes. Nut again, temporary.
Devs: There's a double bar here after OpCAT
CSW: Its concatenation of "or"...
Devs: So if Lshift was used, it would return false.
CSW: It would fail as false.
Devs: No OP2MUL, you didn't mention that this was pushed by Satoshi.
CSW: People were attacking the network. I pushed the changes from the devs who patched those things. But there's a distinction between temporarily changing vs removing the code or adding new opcodes.
Devs: you can see where you say this wasn't necessary here on OP2MUL. You say it should be easy to turn on.
CSW: YEs.
Devs: It's not turned on in BSV.
CSW: It was supposed to be, so I'll be angry if it isn't. [@Bitcoin_Beyond!]
Devs: We checked this morning, and it's disabled.
CSW: Well, I'll be talking to people.
Devs: This is a classic example showing you're not Satoshi.
CSW: I implemented the code then. But I don't do it now. I thought it was turned on because it should have been.
Devs: Satoshi was around for these changes.
CSW: I was around very little at that time. The attack on the network was one of my busiest times posting as Satoshi, but it's also when my marriage really fell apart and started disappearing, and the ATO stuff started at that point.
Devs: Satoshi wasn't distracted though.
CSW: A perfect example, it would be simple to increase the block size and I said that a checkpoint could be added.
Devs: Let's talk PGP keys. We looked at those details. Public key packet is here and subkey packet is ID'd here. You see it's Satoshi at GMX email.
CSW: That's ID typed manually
Devs: You suggested it was from Vistomail
CSW: It was created there in the server field but anythign could be added.
Devs: At this time they were using Linux. this PGP key was obviously a Windows system.
CSW: the header version is in there. There are multiple systems in Vistomail.
Devs: Ming is a windows system.
CSW: Yes
Devs: Version number and creation date sigclass is type [missed it]. OpenPGP doc authored by Hal
CSW: Yes
Devs: When you create the key, you ID the type you're creating.
CSW: Or default values.
Devs: but it can be what you want?
CSW: You set the algo at creation.
Devs: Not an encryption key?
CSW: Not DSA, no.
Devs: It's Satoshi saying he's associating his key with user ID which was Satoshi at GMX
CSW: With that address.
Devs: Self signature {my name X is tied to key]
CSW: Yes, when giving a key associating to give an encrypted packet between two people. It's saying you can trust the things corresponded are secure. I noted the same key shouldn't be used for signing and encryption, but it COULD be.
Devs: You see algo 17?
CSW: Yes
Devs: DSA?
CSW: It's for code signing. A code packet to encrypt and sign.
Devs: Not for encryption though.
CSW: It's encrypt and sign.
Devs: You're not right. Primary is for signing. subkey is for encrypting.
CSW: This is correct.
[PHONE RINGS]
Devs: You said here it was for signing not encryption.
CSW: I said what I said. It was constructed automatically, but I don't remember every key in the PGP. It's like how I don't do C++ since 2017, so I remember quite a bit, but not all.
Devs: You don't know C++
CSW: Yes I do
Devs: No you don't.
CSW: You can see pages of my CV
Devs: You don't have it there.
CSW: Gavin's docs were disclosed that include my BDO CV that includes C++
Devs: Had you signed with this PGP key, it would be evidence that you're Satoshi?
CSW: No. the server has been owned and re-owned. A requirement isn't a piece of data especially if I haven't controlled it the whole time.
CSW: I said what I said. It was constructed automatically, but I don't remember every key in the PGP. It's like how I don't do C++ since 2017, so I remember quite a bit, but not all.
Devs: You don't know C++
CSW: Yes I do
Devs: No you don't.
CSW: You can see pages of my CV
Devs: You don't have it there.
CSW: Gavin's docs were disclosed that include my BDO CV that includes C++
Devs: Had you signed with this PGP key, it would be evidence that you're Satoshi?
CSW: No. the server has been owned and re-owned. A requirement isn't a piece of data especially if I haven't controlled it the whole time.
Devs: New topic. Here's you examined by Rivero in Kleiman case. You say how many computers you were operating here. 69 computers in 4 racks. Split between Bagnoo and Lisserow. Your sister said she saw the computers in your bedroom.
CSW: That was 2002. Not the bitcoin era.
Devs: You say here you were using numerous computer systems. 69 racks but you clarified 69computers. $11k
CSW: Something like that.
Devs: You didn't disclose the power costs
CSW: I don't have records from that era from 15 years ago.
Devs: Did you ask for them?
CSW: Yes
Devs: You said it was spent on validating ESDSA signs?
CSW: And lots of other things, including testing Timecoins, etc.. Not just bitcoin as you see it.
Devs: You accuse Prof Michealjohn of misrepresenting the cost of validation vs hash rate. You said the majority of power is validating ECDSA.
CSW: I also said logging, testing etc...
Devs: ECDSA doesn't take that much to validate.
CSW: My use of bitcoin included all of the other systems.
Devs: How many txs would there have been?
CSW: Not a lot
Devs: Only 219 txs for the first year. Typically 0 txs per block.
CSW: Sure. I said there were log dead periods earlier.
Devs: the majority of power couldn't have been validating txs.
CSW: It depends what you're doing. I was doing many other things. Multiple systems.
Devs: You said the majority of your work was validating ECDSA:
CSW: Yes, but not in the way you're saying
Devs: This is demonstrably false.
CW: I have patents on how to do this. @certihash has integrated this technique with IBM and are running it with clients now.
CSW: That was 2002. Not the bitcoin era.
Devs: You say here you were using numerous computer systems. 69 racks but you clarified 69computers. $11k
CSW: Something like that.
Devs: You didn't disclose the power costs
CSW: I don't have records from that era from 15 years ago.
Devs: Did you ask for them?
CSW: Yes
Devs: You said it was spent on validating ESDSA signs?
CSW: And lots of other things, including testing Timecoins, etc.. Not just bitcoin as you see it.
Devs: You accuse Prof Michealjohn of misrepresenting the cost of validation vs hash rate. You said the majority of power is validating ECDSA.
CSW: I also said logging, testing etc...
Devs: ECDSA doesn't take that much to validate.
CSW: My use of bitcoin included all of the other systems.
Devs: How many txs would there have been?
CSW: Not a lot
Devs: Only 219 txs for the first year. Typically 0 txs per block.
CSW: Sure. I said there were log dead periods earlier.
Devs: the majority of power couldn't have been validating txs.
CSW: It depends what you're doing. I was doing many other things. Multiple systems.
Devs: You said the majority of your work was validating ECDSA:
CSW: Yes, but not in the way you're saying
Devs: This is demonstrably false.
CW: I have patents on how to do this. @certihash has integrated this technique with IBM and are running it with clients now.
Devs: Danny DeMorgan was talking about 2008.
CSW: I had a few homes.
Devs: We have your electric bills.
CSW: PErsonal only.
DEVS: Only $800/month.
CSW: On the house bill. Not the business 3phase.
Devs: You have no record for this?
CSW: Not from Info Defense.
Devs: Final topic: Someone called Genjix wanted to send a letter to wikileaks about bitcoin. Do you know him?
CSW: He was involved in comms. Gavin wanted him to run the site for a while.
Devs: Not by name?
CSW: No.
Devs: We see at the foot of the page, somebody called R Horning says "bring it on" using my real name...
CSW: I see that
Devs: He says bring it on. Let's see how Satoshi reacts. He said "don't bring it on. Project needs to grow gradually." Says it's a beta community and the heat it would bring would destroy us.
CSW: I didn't like this use, but admit it can be used as money. We needed more people doing things with it.
Devs: He said Wikileaks kicked the hornet nest and the swarm is coming for us. One of the last posts from Satoshi in the forum. He didn't want this, yeah?
CSW: It's money, but I didn't want bitcoin to be seen as Wikileaks money.
Devs: Satoshi didn't like the connection?
CSW: It's not a good first usecase. I had said market places and escrow. Instead, Silk road and wikileaks...
Devs: You wrote as CSW here in 2011. On The Conversation. It's your first reference to bitcoin in publication.
CSW: No
Devs: There's earlier ones?
CSW: Maybe not in public anymore.
Devs: You read the comments and provided feedback?
CSW: Some
Devs: You responded to someone called Andrew McNickle PHD candidate at Uni of NSW. Your response was do not buy with PayPal or Wikileaks can get bit coins or other things, etc... there are way to pay them.
CSW: Yes.
Devs: You suggest Wikileaks can get bitcoins?
CSW: I was saying it's an option.
Devs: You spelled it bit coins?
CSW: Autocorrect did.
Devs: didn't do it to Satoshi.
CSW: Satoshi posted in places where bitcoin was a common word.
Devs: You respond again to McNickle saying growth is going to pass PayPal and Facebook credit, etc... Bitcoin strong contender for replacement. You spell Bit Coin in two words with capitals.
CSW: Same site. And Satoshi spelled it this way too.
Devs: He only said it that way in the ReadMe.
CSW: I standardized at some point.
Devs: when you first emerged, you didn't know how to spell bitcoin.
CSW: I already had a company working extensivley in bitcoin.
Devs: You didn't know Satoshi was keen to discourage Wikileaks usage.
CSW: I knew what I said.
Devs: You did it different with PayPal and Facebook.
CSW: Different circumstance.
Devs: You're not Satoshi.
CSW: I AM
Mellor: Can you help me with a few things? Bring up evidence. You said you set the time in LaTex for creation of files. Do you have to set the time or does it default?
CSW: You don't have to. You can choose to modify. I generally do modify so the date will automatically change. If it's a uni assignment, I will generally keep it one way until submission in case I'm asked.
Mellor: And another. This document was made available to various staff and consultants.
CSW: And SSRN. nChain staff run that for me. It had to be reloaded at some point.
Mellor: The differences between this and control property. The only difference is Dr. Craig S Wright at the top. Why would your employees access this instead of the published doc?
CSW: I had asked people to use this doc on SSRN which has a policy of no pseudonyms, so we put one up with my name.
Mellor: Next, on the trusts. the purpose is to keep the assets and IP away from creditors. in case of insolvency proceedings. You made it clear you couldn't access the bitcoin. Does that apply to the IP?
CSW: The IP is in my head, and I could recreate with time, but I don't think people can force me to recreate something if they can't get it.
Mellor: You stressed it was your papers and ideas, database rights and confidental info. Was that body of IP put beyond the reach of your creditors in the trusts?
CSW: I think so, but I was never actually challenged for it. Because I wasn't bankrupted, it wasn't tested. If I was bankrupted, it may have been illegal to do, but TECHNICALLY, because I didn't, it wasn't challenged.
Mellor: Was it all in one tranche?
CSW: "the trust" was used to encrypt everything and keep it from the tax office.
Mellor: Seems a contradiction. If the IP was locked up, how could your employees be working on it still?
CSW: In 2013, when I won in the tribunal, I made a settlement, and the issues went away. but then Dave died, so I couldn't get my notes, so we had to rebuild from scratch anyways.
Mellor: they still exist? And if so, how could the white paper be accessible to staff?
CSW: Not everything was locked away. My data was locked away and some I still don't have access to.
Mellor: You didn't think a draft of the white paper was valuable.
CSW: No, I didn't
Mellor: If I look at the original bitcoin source code, I'll find checkblockheader?
CSW: No. SPV hadn't been built. I talked about it 2010 as needing to be built, but the headless client didn't exist yet. The original client was a mishmash of everything. I needed to build a standalone client to allow people to transact easily and instantly. To make it work, I needed to build PKI, a DNS style system, but none of it was done. The headers client is explained in the white paper, but not demonstrated anywhere. Similar to the alert key.
Mellor: Counsel asking about the core client validation and it's in the present tense.
CSW: I mix tense a lot.
Mellor: You're released from your oath.
CSW: I must say this has been my least stressful case thanks to you, M'Lord.
Mellor: [Laughs] Thank you
Hough: We are off track a bit. Can we hear Aussie witnesses at 9:30 AM next week? and Start another day at 10. Also, Pang, Jenkins and Yusuf are all possible tomorrow.
Mellor: Do we need to be early for those?
CW KC: No, but can we take instructions with CSW so we can do some catch up.
Mellor: Keep us informed. We can start late if necessary. See you tomorrow at 10:30!
DONE
CSW: I had a few homes.
Devs: We have your electric bills.
CSW: PErsonal only.
DEVS: Only $800/month.
CSW: On the house bill. Not the business 3phase.
Devs: You have no record for this?
CSW: Not from Info Defense.
Devs: Final topic: Someone called Genjix wanted to send a letter to wikileaks about bitcoin. Do you know him?
CSW: He was involved in comms. Gavin wanted him to run the site for a while.
Devs: Not by name?
CSW: No.
Devs: We see at the foot of the page, somebody called R Horning says "bring it on" using my real name...
CSW: I see that
Devs: He says bring it on. Let's see how Satoshi reacts. He said "don't bring it on. Project needs to grow gradually." Says it's a beta community and the heat it would bring would destroy us.
CSW: I didn't like this use, but admit it can be used as money. We needed more people doing things with it.
Devs: He said Wikileaks kicked the hornet nest and the swarm is coming for us. One of the last posts from Satoshi in the forum. He didn't want this, yeah?
CSW: It's money, but I didn't want bitcoin to be seen as Wikileaks money.
Devs: Satoshi didn't like the connection?
CSW: It's not a good first usecase. I had said market places and escrow. Instead, Silk road and wikileaks...
Devs: You wrote as CSW here in 2011. On The Conversation. It's your first reference to bitcoin in publication.
CSW: No
Devs: There's earlier ones?
CSW: Maybe not in public anymore.
Devs: You read the comments and provided feedback?
CSW: Some
Devs: You responded to someone called Andrew McNickle PHD candidate at Uni of NSW. Your response was do not buy with PayPal or Wikileaks can get bit coins or other things, etc... there are way to pay them.
CSW: Yes.
Devs: You suggest Wikileaks can get bitcoins?
CSW: I was saying it's an option.
Devs: You spelled it bit coins?
CSW: Autocorrect did.
Devs: didn't do it to Satoshi.
CSW: Satoshi posted in places where bitcoin was a common word.
Devs: You respond again to McNickle saying growth is going to pass PayPal and Facebook credit, etc... Bitcoin strong contender for replacement. You spell Bit Coin in two words with capitals.
CSW: Same site. And Satoshi spelled it this way too.
Devs: He only said it that way in the ReadMe.
CSW: I standardized at some point.
Devs: when you first emerged, you didn't know how to spell bitcoin.
CSW: I already had a company working extensivley in bitcoin.
Devs: You didn't know Satoshi was keen to discourage Wikileaks usage.
CSW: I knew what I said.
Devs: You did it different with PayPal and Facebook.
CSW: Different circumstance.
Devs: You're not Satoshi.
CSW: I AM
Mellor: Can you help me with a few things? Bring up evidence. You said you set the time in LaTex for creation of files. Do you have to set the time or does it default?
CSW: You don't have to. You can choose to modify. I generally do modify so the date will automatically change. If it's a uni assignment, I will generally keep it one way until submission in case I'm asked.
Mellor: And another. This document was made available to various staff and consultants.
CSW: And SSRN. nChain staff run that for me. It had to be reloaded at some point.
Mellor: The differences between this and control property. The only difference is Dr. Craig S Wright at the top. Why would your employees access this instead of the published doc?
CSW: I had asked people to use this doc on SSRN which has a policy of no pseudonyms, so we put one up with my name.
Mellor: Next, on the trusts. the purpose is to keep the assets and IP away from creditors. in case of insolvency proceedings. You made it clear you couldn't access the bitcoin. Does that apply to the IP?
CSW: The IP is in my head, and I could recreate with time, but I don't think people can force me to recreate something if they can't get it.
Mellor: You stressed it was your papers and ideas, database rights and confidental info. Was that body of IP put beyond the reach of your creditors in the trusts?
CSW: I think so, but I was never actually challenged for it. Because I wasn't bankrupted, it wasn't tested. If I was bankrupted, it may have been illegal to do, but TECHNICALLY, because I didn't, it wasn't challenged.
Mellor: Was it all in one tranche?
CSW: "the trust" was used to encrypt everything and keep it from the tax office.
Mellor: Seems a contradiction. If the IP was locked up, how could your employees be working on it still?
CSW: In 2013, when I won in the tribunal, I made a settlement, and the issues went away. but then Dave died, so I couldn't get my notes, so we had to rebuild from scratch anyways.
Mellor: they still exist? And if so, how could the white paper be accessible to staff?
CSW: Not everything was locked away. My data was locked away and some I still don't have access to.
Mellor: You didn't think a draft of the white paper was valuable.
CSW: No, I didn't
Mellor: If I look at the original bitcoin source code, I'll find checkblockheader?
CSW: No. SPV hadn't been built. I talked about it 2010 as needing to be built, but the headless client didn't exist yet. The original client was a mishmash of everything. I needed to build a standalone client to allow people to transact easily and instantly. To make it work, I needed to build PKI, a DNS style system, but none of it was done. The headers client is explained in the white paper, but not demonstrated anywhere. Similar to the alert key.
Mellor: Counsel asking about the core client validation and it's in the present tense.
CSW: I mix tense a lot.
Mellor: You're released from your oath.
CSW: I must say this has been my least stressful case thanks to you, M'Lord.
Mellor: [Laughs] Thank you
Hough: We are off track a bit. Can we hear Aussie witnesses at 9:30 AM next week? and Start another day at 10. Also, Pang, Jenkins and Yusuf are all possible tomorrow.
Mellor: Do we need to be early for those?
CW KC: No, but can we take instructions with CSW so we can do some catch up.
Mellor: Keep us informed. We can start late if necessary. See you tomorrow at 10:30!
DONE
Gunning did a very effective job and deserves credit as, so far, the best litigator in this case so far.
He’s the kind of sparring partner we should hope far in an epic battle. If in person, I’d ask to shake his hand as a worthy competitor.
I similarly made acquaintance with @VelvelFreedman in Miami in 2022 because he was also talented.
These are the sorts of opponents we should pray for. So that, if we win, we can’t say it was due to the incompetence of our opponents but because of the strength we have by our own work.
Gunning, if you read these, thanks for bringing a strong fight to the game!
He’s the kind of sparring partner we should hope far in an epic battle. If in person, I’d ask to shake his hand as a worthy competitor.
I similarly made acquaintance with @VelvelFreedman in Miami in 2022 because he was also talented.
These are the sorts of opponents we should pray for. So that, if we win, we can’t say it was due to the incompetence of our opponents but because of the strength we have by our own work.
Gunning, if you read these, thanks for bringing a strong fight to the game!
And here's my video summary for subscribers ONLY.
for $2.99/month you'll get two of these per day until the end of the trial, and then returning back to my posts about all kinds of other non-bitcoin topics. So a lot of masculine health, lifestyle stuff, collectibles that I like, martial arts, etc...
for $2.99/month you'll get two of these per day until the end of the trial, and then returning back to my posts about all kinds of other non-bitcoin topics. So a lot of masculine health, lifestyle stuff, collectibles that I like, martial arts, etc...
https://x.com/kurtwuckertjr/status/1757809733979812186?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
