February 20, 2024
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright
"The Satoshi Trial" Master Thread.
TUESDAY, DAY 12 PLEASE RETWEET FOR MAX CIRCULATION.
This thread will contain advertisements from sponsors and partners.
****ADVERTISEMENT BELOW****
This X thread brought to you in part by the Bezel "Refer a Friend" Program. If you're in the market for a timepiece, read on.
As a lover of vintage and modern mechanical watches, I use Bezel for my purchasing needs for a few reasons:
Convenience: Shop thousands of the most collectable watches on the planet from all of the top brands, all in one place.
Authenticity: Everything is sent to Bezel's in-house experts for multi-point Bezel certification before it gets shipped.
Concierge: Whether you want to source a hard to find watch or need recommendations, your private client advisor.
For a limited time, the promo code KURTWUCKERTJR will save you $200 any watch sold through Bezel.
Shop Now 👉shop.getbezel.com
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright
"The Satoshi Trial" Master Thread.
TUESDAY, DAY 12 PLEASE RETWEET FOR MAX CIRCULATION.
This thread will contain advertisements from sponsors and partners.
****ADVERTISEMENT BELOW****
This X thread brought to you in part by the Bezel "Refer a Friend" Program. If you're in the market for a timepiece, read on.
As a lover of vintage and modern mechanical watches, I use Bezel for my purchasing needs for a few reasons:
Convenience: Shop thousands of the most collectable watches on the planet from all of the top brands, all in one place.
Authenticity: Everything is sent to Bezel's in-house experts for multi-point Bezel certification before it gets shipped.
Concierge: Whether you want to source a hard to find watch or need recommendations, your private client advisor.
For a limited time, the promo code KURTWUCKERTJR will save you $200 any watch sold through Bezel.
Shop Now 👉shop.getbezel.com
STARTING IMMEDIATELY!
Hough for COPA: Shows document. ATO settlement. CSW emails CA and Somer from Clayton Utz... "Stefan knows my bitcoin history from 2009 on..." So, it's wrong you knew about his bitcoin history from 2009?
SM: We worked together since 2005. I don't know why he said that.
COPA: Extraordinary mistake to make?
SM: Not sure why he would say that...
COPA: On the Andresen era, he wanted to talk about technical stuff?
SM: As a precursor to coming to London.
COPA: CSW said one thing and only one thing would be acceptable: technical stuff.
SM: At the time, yes
COPA: Somer said there has to be some trust to not breech NDA.
SM: Which NDA?
COPA: Presumably with Matonis and Andresen?
SM: I ah yes, I suppose.
COPA: Just looking at this, Rob doesn't seem nasty, but seems to be looking for compromise here?
SM: In this email, yes.
COPA: You recall in advance of the Gavin signing session, you received messages from Uyen about TT and access to keys. Do you recall them?
SM: Not particularly
COPA: Saying "Tulip Trustee approved request for signing for the purposes of verifying CSW, etc... Need to settle violations of the trust though..." This id oddly phrased?
SM: Very oddly phrased.
COPA: So, permission, but also a violation?
SM: I dealt with Denis at this time to receive consent for use of the keys. Denis was the trustee that could approve keys for a specific purpose and a specific occasion. We were concerned about not being able to do the Matonis proof without letters...
COPA: Was Uyen an intern of sorts?
SM: She was associated with a US company. I think with Dave Kleiman. I first hear od her during due diligence in Sydney
COPA: You recall comms from Uyen?
SM: Yes, but it was irrelevant because I was dealing with Denis.
COPA: Did you talk to Craig about these weird emails?
SM: Yes, he said ignore her.
COPA: How did she know that these sessions were taking place?
SM: I don't know.
COPA: On the Andresen interview, Rob talking media briefings with signings in closed-door sessions for GQ, etc...
SM: I see it.
COPA: A plan for bitcoin to be sent inbound to blocks 1 and 9.
SM: Yep
COPA: The bitcoin sent back and media released
SM: I see it
COPA: Andrew's deeper piece release plan... That O'Hagan?
SM: I think so
COPA: CSW was opposed to moving bitcoin and didn't like reference to large screens.
SM: Yes
COPA: Here, you reassure CSW the screen would just be a monitor.
SM: Yep
COPA: Ramona chimes in saying sessions need to be closed and quiet and the difficulty of moving bitcoin because CSW had said he had no control of bitcoins until 2020.
SM: Can we also revisit Denis talk. I recall the letter saying the private keys can't be used for moving coin, but could be used for signing only.
COPA: Later, do you recall, Denis saying it could be moved if it was coin that had been sent in.
SM: I don't recall that.
Hough for COPA: Shows document. ATO settlement. CSW emails CA and Somer from Clayton Utz... "Stefan knows my bitcoin history from 2009 on..." So, it's wrong you knew about his bitcoin history from 2009?
SM: We worked together since 2005. I don't know why he said that.
COPA: Extraordinary mistake to make?
SM: Not sure why he would say that...
COPA: On the Andresen era, he wanted to talk about technical stuff?
SM: As a precursor to coming to London.
COPA: CSW said one thing and only one thing would be acceptable: technical stuff.
SM: At the time, yes
COPA: Somer said there has to be some trust to not breech NDA.
SM: Which NDA?
COPA: Presumably with Matonis and Andresen?
SM: I ah yes, I suppose.
COPA: Just looking at this, Rob doesn't seem nasty, but seems to be looking for compromise here?
SM: In this email, yes.
COPA: You recall in advance of the Gavin signing session, you received messages from Uyen about TT and access to keys. Do you recall them?
SM: Not particularly
COPA: Saying "Tulip Trustee approved request for signing for the purposes of verifying CSW, etc... Need to settle violations of the trust though..." This id oddly phrased?
SM: Very oddly phrased.
COPA: So, permission, but also a violation?
SM: I dealt with Denis at this time to receive consent for use of the keys. Denis was the trustee that could approve keys for a specific purpose and a specific occasion. We were concerned about not being able to do the Matonis proof without letters...
COPA: Was Uyen an intern of sorts?
SM: She was associated with a US company. I think with Dave Kleiman. I first hear od her during due diligence in Sydney
COPA: You recall comms from Uyen?
SM: Yes, but it was irrelevant because I was dealing with Denis.
COPA: Did you talk to Craig about these weird emails?
SM: Yes, he said ignore her.
COPA: How did she know that these sessions were taking place?
SM: I don't know.
COPA: On the Andresen interview, Rob talking media briefings with signings in closed-door sessions for GQ, etc...
SM: I see it.
COPA: A plan for bitcoin to be sent inbound to blocks 1 and 9.
SM: Yep
COPA: The bitcoin sent back and media released
SM: I see it
COPA: Andrew's deeper piece release plan... That O'Hagan?
SM: I think so
COPA: CSW was opposed to moving bitcoin and didn't like reference to large screens.
SM: Yes
COPA: Here, you reassure CSW the screen would just be a monitor.
SM: Yep
COPA: Ramona chimes in saying sessions need to be closed and quiet and the difficulty of moving bitcoin because CSW had said he had no control of bitcoins until 2020.
SM: Can we also revisit Denis talk. I recall the letter saying the private keys can't be used for moving coin, but could be used for signing only.
COPA: Later, do you recall, Denis saying it could be moved if it was coin that had been sent in.
SM: I don't recall that.
COPA: Do you recall CSW expressing views about coin movement and the monitor and you responding that talking with Rob has led you to want to have a conversation about details?
SM: I supposed. I wrote it, so I meant it.
COPA: Looking back, Rob had convinced you that he wasn't being unreasonable.
SM: I wouldn't say that at all. Rob and I were heated at times, especially in this period.
COPA: Why did you say it was heated then?
SM: I wanted there to be compromise for everyone.
COPA: More discussion of large screens. Rob not proposing a breech of Trust, just saying he would like to move coin out if they were moved in.
SM: I see that.
COPA: This whole exchange about forms of proof, this doesn't come across as an angry aggressive person enforcing demands on CSW, but a collab convo.
SM: Rob was legally trained and very selective in written conversation.
SM: I supposed. I wrote it, so I meant it.
COPA: Looking back, Rob had convinced you that he wasn't being unreasonable.
SM: I wouldn't say that at all. Rob and I were heated at times, especially in this period.
COPA: Why did you say it was heated then?
SM: I wanted there to be compromise for everyone.
COPA: More discussion of large screens. Rob not proposing a breech of Trust, just saying he would like to move coin out if they were moved in.
SM: I see that.
COPA: This whole exchange about forms of proof, this doesn't come across as an angry aggressive person enforcing demands on CSW, but a collab convo.
SM: Rob was legally trained and very selective in written conversation.
COPA: Let's look at another conversation from someone else then. A week later. From Rob about actions, and you provide in line updates.
SM: I see that
COPA: You see that you respond to questions about forensic report.
SM: Yes
COPA: Please confirm with Gavin, etc...
SM: Yes. I don't know these guys, but Victoria is from Milk PR, and Craig hadn't agreed to their whole plan.
COPA: We see the blog infrastructure was to be completed by the first of May.
SM: I see that
COPA: With actions for you
SM: Comms with Jon and Gavin. Other people doing other things. I didn't have any work on blog.
COPA: You indicate here that you had done prep
SM: MmmHmmm
COPA: 29th of April, action for you on refresher training for inquiries.
SM: That was Kat who was assigned by Rob.
COPA: Then confirm Gavin post readiness...
SM: Yes
COPA: Blog then to go live...
SM: Yes
COPA: You look very involved in the big media reveal.
SM: I wasn't driving it, but I was involved.
COPA: You didn't protest the blog signings. No issues with that plan?
SM: I didn't protest at the time.
COPA: Ms Brooks from Milk PR sent you a series of docs for economist, BBC, GQ... Your witness statement says you had no involvement in arranging public proof sessions. Would you qualify that now by saying you had quite a bit to do?
SM: The operative word is "arranging." I wasn't setting any of this out.
COPA: So, insuring staff, helping with the blog, Jon and Gavin... That wasn't arranging?
SM: I think those things are peripheral to arranging.
COPA: You paint a picture of CSW being bullied by Rob. The emails tell a different story.
SM: If you just rely on emails, you'd be excused for forming that opinion, but the reality was that the in person discussions were different. He didn't present hostile in writing.
COPA: Your responses to him though, also show cooperation.
SM: Yes, I tried to act as a bridge between Rob and CSW.
COPA: You're trying to justify CSW's failure to provide proof.
SM: that's not true
COPA: Email from Brooks at Milk PR. Interviews GQ had already happened?
SM: I wasn't at those interviews.
COPA: She says a timeline for May, the blog went live, CSW signed . /you agree there was supposed to be a signing by then?
SM: I do
COPA: Email from CSW to you and others. The doc attached is Jean Paul Sartre draft blog post.
SM: I recall this
COPA: At that point, this was all going forward?
SM: Yes
COPA: The draft was supposed to have a crypto proof?
SM: I believe, yes.
COPA: Discussing block 9 or block 1, but 9 is the Finney block...What does NFI stand for?
SM: No fucking idea
Mellor [laughing]
COPA: You didn't suggest any of this was unreasonable?
SM: I didn't think it was. But Wright wouldn't agree.
COPA: You send a smily saying you'd get block 1. No tension there?
SM: Not in the email.
COPA: CSW was in Paris at this time?
SM: He took the family to Disney Land, yeah. I was trying to communicate with him, but he was on the Eurostar.
COPA: You're all working under the assumption that there was a key signing with a Satoshi key?
SM: That was our understanding at the time.
SM: I see that
COPA: You see that you respond to questions about forensic report.
SM: Yes
COPA: Please confirm with Gavin, etc...
SM: Yes. I don't know these guys, but Victoria is from Milk PR, and Craig hadn't agreed to their whole plan.
COPA: We see the blog infrastructure was to be completed by the first of May.
SM: I see that
COPA: With actions for you
SM: Comms with Jon and Gavin. Other people doing other things. I didn't have any work on blog.
COPA: You indicate here that you had done prep
SM: MmmHmmm
COPA: 29th of April, action for you on refresher training for inquiries.
SM: That was Kat who was assigned by Rob.
COPA: Then confirm Gavin post readiness...
SM: Yes
COPA: Blog then to go live...
SM: Yes
COPA: You look very involved in the big media reveal.
SM: I wasn't driving it, but I was involved.
COPA: You didn't protest the blog signings. No issues with that plan?
SM: I didn't protest at the time.
COPA: Ms Brooks from Milk PR sent you a series of docs for economist, BBC, GQ... Your witness statement says you had no involvement in arranging public proof sessions. Would you qualify that now by saying you had quite a bit to do?
SM: The operative word is "arranging." I wasn't setting any of this out.
COPA: So, insuring staff, helping with the blog, Jon and Gavin... That wasn't arranging?
SM: I think those things are peripheral to arranging.
COPA: You paint a picture of CSW being bullied by Rob. The emails tell a different story.
SM: If you just rely on emails, you'd be excused for forming that opinion, but the reality was that the in person discussions were different. He didn't present hostile in writing.
COPA: Your responses to him though, also show cooperation.
SM: Yes, I tried to act as a bridge between Rob and CSW.
COPA: You're trying to justify CSW's failure to provide proof.
SM: that's not true
COPA: Email from Brooks at Milk PR. Interviews GQ had already happened?
SM: I wasn't at those interviews.
COPA: She says a timeline for May, the blog went live, CSW signed . /you agree there was supposed to be a signing by then?
SM: I do
COPA: Email from CSW to you and others. The doc attached is Jean Paul Sartre draft blog post.
SM: I recall this
COPA: At that point, this was all going forward?
SM: Yes
COPA: The draft was supposed to have a crypto proof?
SM: I believe, yes.
COPA: Discussing block 9 or block 1, but 9 is the Finney block...What does NFI stand for?
SM: No fucking idea
Mellor [laughing]
COPA: You didn't suggest any of this was unreasonable?
SM: I didn't think it was. But Wright wouldn't agree.
COPA: You send a smily saying you'd get block 1. No tension there?
SM: Not in the email.
COPA: CSW was in Paris at this time?
SM: He took the family to Disney Land, yeah. I was trying to communicate with him, but he was on the Eurostar.
COPA: You're all working under the assumption that there was a key signing with a Satoshi key?
SM: That was our understanding at the time.
COPA: nCrypt Alan Peterson attached Sartre version 7
SM: Yes
COPA: Is it right, you had reviewed it and gave some feedback?
SM: I don't remember how much feedback, but I remember it going through our hands.
COPA: You expected a crypto proof?
SM: That was the intent.
COPA: Rob emails on the evening of May 1 that he's impressed working on the project. Saying thank you and "big news." Mood was optimistic, huh? They were getting on fine?
SM: Yes
COPA: The Morning of 2 May, it was released. And the embargo was released and articles were released. News was saying a key signing was coming as proof. The media was clear that the blog would contain crypto proof.
SM: Yes
COPA: Swiftly, there was response showing how it was fake.
SM: I recall that.
COPA: It was just a pub key.
SM: I recall that.
COPA: Here's an email from among your team saying the signature has fallen apart, and things souring badly. CA saying "how did this fall apart?" You recall this?
SM: Yes
COPA: CSW says the wrong copy was uploaded.
SM: I recall that
COPA: Rob suggested a new draft with new message for different keys...
SM: [reading] I don't recall this
COPA: This is an exchange of emails between you, Gavin and CSW from that day. You write "I spoke to CSW, he has agreed to sign a message with block 1 and 9... We will have these 4PM London..." Is it right that a day after Sartre blog was discredited, you spoke to CSW?
SM: Yes, a dozen times that morning.
COPA: And he agreed to do a new signing with those keys?
SM: I don't recall exactly, but I see my email.
COPA: CSW says he was traveling but will explain. He was initially open to the idea to new signed messages.
SM: He was indicating that, yes.
COPA: So quite apart from the emails, that was initial positions.
SM: It was one of his positions. It was a chaotic day.
COPA: Do you recall feeling confident to tell Gavin that was going to happen?
SM: Maybe. I don't remember exactly.
COPA: You said it was CSW's intention to put this message in the blog post?
SM: You need to ask CSW. It was my understanding that he deliberately put in incorrect information. Why? I don't know.
COPA: This wasn't a fuck up. It was deliberate then?
SM: I don't stand in his shoes, but from where I sat, incorrect info was provided.
COPA: Deliberately, but not in error?
SM: They weren't posted by CSW. They were posted by Rob.
COPA: The court has examined this, and they both contain the same flawed message which Reddit discredited.
SM: But Rob and myself were unable to determine that.
COPA: Did you understand then that the failure of the blog post was an error or deliberate?
SM: It would be accurate to say that at the time, I was inclined to understand it was an error.
COPA: Which is consistent with what CSW said?
SM: Yes
COPA: So Wright was saying it was an error, but in fact, it was precisely what he wanted.
SM: That is a fair statement, I think.
COPA: On that basis, then he lied to you?
SM: IDK. I'm not in position to determine that.
COPA: Well, it was deliberate?
SM: We don't know when he knew it was incorrect.
COPA: He didn't say?
SM: Well, it could have been an error.
SM: Yes
COPA: Is it right, you had reviewed it and gave some feedback?
SM: I don't remember how much feedback, but I remember it going through our hands.
COPA: You expected a crypto proof?
SM: That was the intent.
COPA: Rob emails on the evening of May 1 that he's impressed working on the project. Saying thank you and "big news." Mood was optimistic, huh? They were getting on fine?
SM: Yes
COPA: The Morning of 2 May, it was released. And the embargo was released and articles were released. News was saying a key signing was coming as proof. The media was clear that the blog would contain crypto proof.
SM: Yes
COPA: Swiftly, there was response showing how it was fake.
SM: I recall that.
COPA: It was just a pub key.
SM: I recall that.
COPA: Here's an email from among your team saying the signature has fallen apart, and things souring badly. CA saying "how did this fall apart?" You recall this?
SM: Yes
COPA: CSW says the wrong copy was uploaded.
SM: I recall that
COPA: Rob suggested a new draft with new message for different keys...
SM: [reading] I don't recall this
COPA: This is an exchange of emails between you, Gavin and CSW from that day. You write "I spoke to CSW, he has agreed to sign a message with block 1 and 9... We will have these 4PM London..." Is it right that a day after Sartre blog was discredited, you spoke to CSW?
SM: Yes, a dozen times that morning.
COPA: And he agreed to do a new signing with those keys?
SM: I don't recall exactly, but I see my email.
COPA: CSW says he was traveling but will explain. He was initially open to the idea to new signed messages.
SM: He was indicating that, yes.
COPA: So quite apart from the emails, that was initial positions.
SM: It was one of his positions. It was a chaotic day.
COPA: Do you recall feeling confident to tell Gavin that was going to happen?
SM: Maybe. I don't remember exactly.
COPA: You said it was CSW's intention to put this message in the blog post?
SM: You need to ask CSW. It was my understanding that he deliberately put in incorrect information. Why? I don't know.
COPA: This wasn't a fuck up. It was deliberate then?
SM: I don't stand in his shoes, but from where I sat, incorrect info was provided.
COPA: Deliberately, but not in error?
SM: They weren't posted by CSW. They were posted by Rob.
COPA: The court has examined this, and they both contain the same flawed message which Reddit discredited.
SM: But Rob and myself were unable to determine that.
COPA: Did you understand then that the failure of the blog post was an error or deliberate?
SM: It would be accurate to say that at the time, I was inclined to understand it was an error.
COPA: Which is consistent with what CSW said?
SM: Yes
COPA: So Wright was saying it was an error, but in fact, it was precisely what he wanted.
SM: That is a fair statement, I think.
COPA: On that basis, then he lied to you?
SM: IDK. I'm not in position to determine that.
COPA: Well, it was deliberate?
SM: We don't know when he knew it was incorrect.
COPA: He didn't say?
SM: Well, it could have been an error.
COPA: Here's you telling Gavin it would be corrected but craig is out of the country. Embarassing, but it was rushed, etc...
SM: It's what I understood at the time.
COPA: Accidental screenshots and code weren't uploaded. They were deliberate?
SM: I don't know what CSW has said.
COPA: You said it was deliberate in your witness statement.
SM: I know that now. I didn't know on May 2, 2016.
COPA: So it was a lie
SM: I can't say if it was a lie, but it was what I was told.
COPA: You recall starting to suggest to Gavin that he send bitcoin to a block 9 address?
SM: Yes, this was a process started by Rob. The issue we discussed was that it was contrary to Denis' approval, but Rob was going to explore ways to deal with that.
COPA: Gavin's response: I can send a bitcoin to be sent back. That would be excellent evidence. You recall him being happy?
SM: I do. Sorry. Gavin says "tell Craig I could make a screenshot mistake too."
COPA: It became clear this was an error of substance, not a copy error. Rob stresses that it needs to be fixed with clear proof. Ayre says "let's fix asap." You recall that when CSW came back and you went to Wimbledon?
SM: No, I don't.
COPA: From Rob to you, CSW, Ramona suggesting signings with blocks and returning Gavin's coins.
SM: Yes. I recall it being only a fraction of a BTC that was send.
COPA: Yes
COPA: Looks like that evening, CSW seems positive about a further signing but concerned about sending bitcoin from early blocks.
SM: Yes, that was Denis' rule. Would I say he was positive about it? No. He was reluctant and argumentative, but appeared to be going along.
COPA: Rob emailed Gavin that evening to say he was out on a limb. Further up, Gavin says "what is the funky proof?" and it'll be reloaded soon, etc...
SM: correct
COPA: You say there was a post that was supposed to happen but you were peripheral. Would you say now you were central?
SM: No.
COPA: Looks like you were a reviewer or planner.
SM: I wasn't a planner. I was taking orders.
COPA: Then there would be a NEW signed message but you note there's a problem. CSW said it was accident, but you then say you are starting to think it was deliberate.
SM: that's what we've been saying.
COPA: In reality, it was approved by CSW and issued the way it was planned.
SM: It was posted by Rob late at night. I was in London and Rob was calling me every 10 minutes asking if I heard from CSW. Rob was saying he had to post and the post was made.
COPA: the part that was the problem was the message that wasn't a proof.
SM: Yes
COPA: The only person who said that the problem was an error was Wright.
SM: That's where it came from.
COPA: that was incorrect. It wasn't an error. It was deliberately not a proof.
SM: That's what I've said.
FIVE MINUTES BREAK
SM: It's what I understood at the time.
COPA: Accidental screenshots and code weren't uploaded. They were deliberate?
SM: I don't know what CSW has said.
COPA: You said it was deliberate in your witness statement.
SM: I know that now. I didn't know on May 2, 2016.
COPA: So it was a lie
SM: I can't say if it was a lie, but it was what I was told.
COPA: You recall starting to suggest to Gavin that he send bitcoin to a block 9 address?
SM: Yes, this was a process started by Rob. The issue we discussed was that it was contrary to Denis' approval, but Rob was going to explore ways to deal with that.
COPA: Gavin's response: I can send a bitcoin to be sent back. That would be excellent evidence. You recall him being happy?
SM: I do. Sorry. Gavin says "tell Craig I could make a screenshot mistake too."
COPA: It became clear this was an error of substance, not a copy error. Rob stresses that it needs to be fixed with clear proof. Ayre says "let's fix asap." You recall that when CSW came back and you went to Wimbledon?
SM: No, I don't.
COPA: From Rob to you, CSW, Ramona suggesting signings with blocks and returning Gavin's coins.
SM: Yes. I recall it being only a fraction of a BTC that was send.
COPA: Yes
COPA: Looks like that evening, CSW seems positive about a further signing but concerned about sending bitcoin from early blocks.
SM: Yes, that was Denis' rule. Would I say he was positive about it? No. He was reluctant and argumentative, but appeared to be going along.
COPA: Rob emailed Gavin that evening to say he was out on a limb. Further up, Gavin says "what is the funky proof?" and it'll be reloaded soon, etc...
SM: correct
COPA: You say there was a post that was supposed to happen but you were peripheral. Would you say now you were central?
SM: No.
COPA: Looks like you were a reviewer or planner.
SM: I wasn't a planner. I was taking orders.
COPA: Then there would be a NEW signed message but you note there's a problem. CSW said it was accident, but you then say you are starting to think it was deliberate.
SM: that's what we've been saying.
COPA: In reality, it was approved by CSW and issued the way it was planned.
SM: It was posted by Rob late at night. I was in London and Rob was calling me every 10 minutes asking if I heard from CSW. Rob was saying he had to post and the post was made.
COPA: the part that was the problem was the message that wasn't a proof.
SM: Yes
COPA: The only person who said that the problem was an error was Wright.
SM: That's where it came from.
COPA: that was incorrect. It wasn't an error. It was deliberately not a proof.
SM: That's what I've said.
FIVE MINUTES BREAK
This X thread brought to you in part by the Bezel "Refer a Friend" Program. If you're in the market for a timepiece, read on.
As a lover of vintage and modern mechanical watches, I use Bezel for my purchasing needs for a few reasons:
Convenience: Shop thousands of the most collectable watches on the planet from all of the top brands, all in one place.
Authenticity: Everything is sent to Bezel's in-house experts for multi-point Bezel certification before it gets shipped.
Concierge: Whether you want to source a hard to find watch or need recommendations, your private client advisor.
For a limited time, the promo code KURTWUCKERTJR will save you $200 any watch sold through Bezel.
Shop Now 👉shop.getbezel.com
As a lover of vintage and modern mechanical watches, I use Bezel for my purchasing needs for a few reasons:
Convenience: Shop thousands of the most collectable watches on the planet from all of the top brands, all in one place.
Authenticity: Everything is sent to Bezel's in-house experts for multi-point Bezel certification before it gets shipped.
Concierge: Whether you want to source a hard to find watch or need recommendations, your private client advisor.
For a limited time, the promo code KURTWUCKERTJR will save you $200 any watch sold through Bezel.
Shop Now 👉shop.getbezel.com
COPA: Discussion with Denis Mayaka about the Tulip Trust... Key slices. You recall these part of your signing sessions?
SM: Not with Matonis and Andresen. Those happened before this date...
COPA: These seem to say money can be spent as long as it's not trust assets.
SM: Yes, but I wouldn't have been involved in the Milk PR media sessions.
COPA: You appear to be working on a blog update, yes?
SM: With Craig
COPA: Email from Ramona at 3AM on 3May "very long night. Working on it." You agree he claimed to be working on new blog.
SM: Yes
COPA: Rob came up with PGP option?
SM: Yes
COPA: Later in the day, Rob asking for feedback on facts and errors.
SM: Yes
COPA: Do recall a blog post like this being suggested by Rob?
SM: Yes
COPA: You saying Craig;s email is really impressive.
[MISSED A BIT OF THE EXCHANGE MY DAUGHTER NEEDED MY HELP FOR A FEW MINUTES...]
COPA: So Craig did at least agree to the PGP option or other proofs for a bit.
SM: Yes.
COPA: What's the issue with K Value on PGP?
SM: It's a variable in the scheme.
COPA: They needed an answer on why the blog post failed. It's not enough to say it was rushed or why it wasn't fixed. CSW says he was working on it. Rob refers to Jon being angry. Do you recall Jon being annoyed?
SM: Yes
COPA: Rob asking about backstory on the block 9 tx. Asking for early email or photos of something.
SM: I see that
COPA: Never met him, but I have photos of the farm...
SM: Yes
COPA: Rob says Finney and Satoshi emailed. suggests digging them up and says you should go through the email archives as an option.
SM: Just want to go to the Craig email about the farm. I'm presuming that was the farm where he was mining in NSWales He asked me to call his exwife to ask for pics of the server racks at the farm. I did it. He asked me to because it was Lynn who would send me invoices back then. I asked he about pics, and she said she had a number of them which she would dig out. It was interesting to see the reference here.
COPA: Rob wanted to see if CSW could provide early emails. But might take time.
SM: Yes
COPA: Do you remember getting an infuriating email with nothing useful?
SM: I don't.
COPA: Ramona mentioning a turing complete white paper to be produced. Rob saying it's lower priority. Saying ignore tech ideas for now. Ramona says it's important for Craig. Rob saying it won't matter. Nobody will read Craig's tech without getting these proofs done. You and Rob wanted proofs, it seems?
SM: Yes
COPA: Must have been infuriating for you?
SM: Dealing with CSW for years, I've learned to deal with his constant tangents.
COPA: He's trying to pivot away from objective proof here.
SM: I don't agree.
COPA: Do you remember a journalist being suggested to evaluate emails between Satoshi and Finney. You asking if it would help if you came over?
SM: This was the day coins were supposed to move, right? I offered because Rob told me to go make sure coins move.
COPA: So you were trying to further the prospect of Finney emails.
SM: Yes
SM: Not with Matonis and Andresen. Those happened before this date...
COPA: These seem to say money can be spent as long as it's not trust assets.
SM: Yes, but I wouldn't have been involved in the Milk PR media sessions.
COPA: You appear to be working on a blog update, yes?
SM: With Craig
COPA: Email from Ramona at 3AM on 3May "very long night. Working on it." You agree he claimed to be working on new blog.
SM: Yes
COPA: Rob came up with PGP option?
SM: Yes
COPA: Later in the day, Rob asking for feedback on facts and errors.
SM: Yes
COPA: Do recall a blog post like this being suggested by Rob?
SM: Yes
COPA: You saying Craig;s email is really impressive.
[MISSED A BIT OF THE EXCHANGE MY DAUGHTER NEEDED MY HELP FOR A FEW MINUTES...]
COPA: So Craig did at least agree to the PGP option or other proofs for a bit.
SM: Yes.
COPA: What's the issue with K Value on PGP?
SM: It's a variable in the scheme.
COPA: They needed an answer on why the blog post failed. It's not enough to say it was rushed or why it wasn't fixed. CSW says he was working on it. Rob refers to Jon being angry. Do you recall Jon being annoyed?
SM: Yes
COPA: Rob asking about backstory on the block 9 tx. Asking for early email or photos of something.
SM: I see that
COPA: Never met him, but I have photos of the farm...
SM: Yes
COPA: Rob says Finney and Satoshi emailed. suggests digging them up and says you should go through the email archives as an option.
SM: Just want to go to the Craig email about the farm. I'm presuming that was the farm where he was mining in NSWales He asked me to call his exwife to ask for pics of the server racks at the farm. I did it. He asked me to because it was Lynn who would send me invoices back then. I asked he about pics, and she said she had a number of them which she would dig out. It was interesting to see the reference here.
COPA: Rob wanted to see if CSW could provide early emails. But might take time.
SM: Yes
COPA: Do you remember getting an infuriating email with nothing useful?
SM: I don't.
COPA: Ramona mentioning a turing complete white paper to be produced. Rob saying it's lower priority. Saying ignore tech ideas for now. Ramona says it's important for Craig. Rob saying it won't matter. Nobody will read Craig's tech without getting these proofs done. You and Rob wanted proofs, it seems?
SM: Yes
COPA: Must have been infuriating for you?
SM: Dealing with CSW for years, I've learned to deal with his constant tangents.
COPA: He's trying to pivot away from objective proof here.
SM: I don't agree.
COPA: Do you remember a journalist being suggested to evaluate emails between Satoshi and Finney. You asking if it would help if you came over?
SM: This was the day coins were supposed to move, right? I offered because Rob told me to go make sure coins move.
COPA: So you were trying to further the prospect of Finney emails.
SM: Yes
COPA: Rob sending you post from block 9 which you forward to Craig and Ramona
SM: Yes
COPA: Do you remember forwarding this one now?
SM: Not specifically, but I see the email.
COPA: for coins to move?
SM: Correct
COPA: You still thought Craig was content to do this?
SM: Yes
COPA: You thought he would do it?
SM: It wasn't smooth waters, but he agreed he would do it.
COPA: Email from you on 4 May, you tell Gavin to get ahead of any fixes needed and that he may need to do some research here... what research?
SM: CSW had raised a concern... I need to put it in context first. I arrived at the Wright's in Wimbledon, and knocked on the door. Ramona answered the door saying "we have a problem. He's not going to do it." So I sat down with him and said why. He said there was some issue with the very early code, and if he moved early coin a vulnerability may exist. I called Gavin and put it on speaker to discuss. 20 minutes, CSW explained the concern and Gavin explained that after CSW had left the ecosystem, that vulnerability was applied that CSW didn't know about. Gavin assured Craig it wouldn't be a problem.
COPA: the way you describe it in your witness statement was that CSW wanted to explain this as an excuse. Is that true?
SM: I think it's consistent with what I just said.
COPA: Gavin said it wasn't a concern.
SM: Yes, and the call ended with Craig not accepting but understanding that Gavin didn't think it was an issue and that I felt he should do the transfer as planned.
COPA: You were trying to persuade him to do it then?
SM: At this point, I was quite forceful about it. He needed to follow through.
COPA: If it was due to a defect, he could have provided other proof?
SM: I'm not sure, but his concern was verified by Gavin even though it had been fixed.
COPA: So then he could have done a new signed message too.
SM: Under circumstances, the moving of coins was the solution we created and agreed to.
COPA: But there WERE other forms of proof.
SM: Probably. In context about credibility, moving coins was felt to be the absolute gold standard.
COPA: But CSW wasn't offering ANY proof now?
SM: Yep. Refused to do it.
COPA: So no alternative?
SM: No alternative.
COPA: He was not prepared or not able to do it?
SM: Not sure, but he declined, and I told him why I felt that there was no alternative, and events unfolded after that that are unpleasant to me... [the suicide attempt]
COPA: Who else was there?
SM: Ramona came in and out a bit, but nobody else in the house. she came in after the call with Gavin. I explained to her the concerns and we had dealt with and that Craig was going to go ahead with transfers. that's where I felt it sat. It was then that he asked her to make tea, and then he left me in the room and what happened next is a matter of record.
COPA: Drawing it all together now, you and Rob explored a range of ways Craig could provide proof?
SM: Yes, not sure we explored all.
COPA: but he agreed to some form of objective proof?
SM: Yes.
COPA: and defaulted?
SM: Yep.
COPA: Because he wouldn't or couldn't?
SM: I can't say. But I have seen him use the private keys in two private sessions, so I assumed he could do it again, so I would argue it was wouldn't rather than couldn't.
COPA: So you think the signing sessions were genuine?
SM: I do
COPA: It looks like he couldn't
SM: I wouldn't conclude that.
SM: Yes
COPA: Do you remember forwarding this one now?
SM: Not specifically, but I see the email.
COPA: for coins to move?
SM: Correct
COPA: You still thought Craig was content to do this?
SM: Yes
COPA: You thought he would do it?
SM: It wasn't smooth waters, but he agreed he would do it.
COPA: Email from you on 4 May, you tell Gavin to get ahead of any fixes needed and that he may need to do some research here... what research?
SM: CSW had raised a concern... I need to put it in context first. I arrived at the Wright's in Wimbledon, and knocked on the door. Ramona answered the door saying "we have a problem. He's not going to do it." So I sat down with him and said why. He said there was some issue with the very early code, and if he moved early coin a vulnerability may exist. I called Gavin and put it on speaker to discuss. 20 minutes, CSW explained the concern and Gavin explained that after CSW had left the ecosystem, that vulnerability was applied that CSW didn't know about. Gavin assured Craig it wouldn't be a problem.
COPA: the way you describe it in your witness statement was that CSW wanted to explain this as an excuse. Is that true?
SM: I think it's consistent with what I just said.
COPA: Gavin said it wasn't a concern.
SM: Yes, and the call ended with Craig not accepting but understanding that Gavin didn't think it was an issue and that I felt he should do the transfer as planned.
COPA: You were trying to persuade him to do it then?
SM: At this point, I was quite forceful about it. He needed to follow through.
COPA: If it was due to a defect, he could have provided other proof?
SM: I'm not sure, but his concern was verified by Gavin even though it had been fixed.
COPA: So then he could have done a new signed message too.
SM: Under circumstances, the moving of coins was the solution we created and agreed to.
COPA: But there WERE other forms of proof.
SM: Probably. In context about credibility, moving coins was felt to be the absolute gold standard.
COPA: But CSW wasn't offering ANY proof now?
SM: Yep. Refused to do it.
COPA: So no alternative?
SM: No alternative.
COPA: He was not prepared or not able to do it?
SM: Not sure, but he declined, and I told him why I felt that there was no alternative, and events unfolded after that that are unpleasant to me... [the suicide attempt]
COPA: Who else was there?
SM: Ramona came in and out a bit, but nobody else in the house. she came in after the call with Gavin. I explained to her the concerns and we had dealt with and that Craig was going to go ahead with transfers. that's where I felt it sat. It was then that he asked her to make tea, and then he left me in the room and what happened next is a matter of record.
COPA: Drawing it all together now, you and Rob explored a range of ways Craig could provide proof?
SM: Yes, not sure we explored all.
COPA: but he agreed to some form of objective proof?
SM: Yes.
COPA: and defaulted?
SM: Yep.
COPA: Because he wouldn't or couldn't?
SM: I can't say. But I have seen him use the private keys in two private sessions, so I assumed he could do it again, so I would argue it was wouldn't rather than couldn't.
COPA: So you think the signing sessions were genuine?
SM: I do
COPA: It looks like he couldn't
SM: I wouldn't conclude that.
COPA: You're working from memory on all of this?
SM: Yes
COPA: You weren't part of the technical parts of this?
SM: No
COPA: You recall 3 keys from blocks 1, 9 and either 5 or 7?
SM: yes.
COPA: CSW said 9 and 11?
SM: I don't know.
COPA: Matonis says block 1. Are you confident of your account?
SM: Yes, both guys were allowed to pick at random from the first 10 or 12 blocks. I was suprised they both chose 1 and 9, and then the others were 5 or 7.
COPA: You didn't see the screen but but it was Wright's laptop?
SM: Yes, with Jon viewing the screen.
COPA: At Covent Gargens hotel?
SM: Yes
COPA: Gavin was more thorough and wanted to see on his computer?
SM: Yes
COPA: CSW refused and said a new computer could be bought instead.
SM: Yes
COPA: And you used hotel wifi?
SM: Yes, I remember calling the hotel manager to get the password.
COPA: No hotspot?
SM: No
COPA: In Kleiman, Gavin said he didn't check that the laptop was factory sealed.
SM: It was in original packaging, and he unboxed it.
COPA: He was very clear it was Wright who downloaded the software to be used.
SM: He was asked what he preferred, and Gavin did the download.
COPA: Gavin said it was wright.
SM: Keyboard was in control of Gavin
COPA: Gavin said otherwise.
SM: that's incorrect.
COPA: First proof failed due to missing "S". What happened was he asked for "CSW" to be added.
SM: I don't know exactly.
COPA: Wright spotted the ommission?
SM: YEs
COPA: And you can't comment on the technical aspects of this?
SM: Correct
SM: Yes
COPA: You weren't part of the technical parts of this?
SM: No
COPA: You recall 3 keys from blocks 1, 9 and either 5 or 7?
SM: yes.
COPA: CSW said 9 and 11?
SM: I don't know.
COPA: Matonis says block 1. Are you confident of your account?
SM: Yes, both guys were allowed to pick at random from the first 10 or 12 blocks. I was suprised they both chose 1 and 9, and then the others were 5 or 7.
COPA: You didn't see the screen but but it was Wright's laptop?
SM: Yes, with Jon viewing the screen.
COPA: At Covent Gargens hotel?
SM: Yes
COPA: Gavin was more thorough and wanted to see on his computer?
SM: Yes
COPA: CSW refused and said a new computer could be bought instead.
SM: Yes
COPA: And you used hotel wifi?
SM: Yes, I remember calling the hotel manager to get the password.
COPA: No hotspot?
SM: No
COPA: In Kleiman, Gavin said he didn't check that the laptop was factory sealed.
SM: It was in original packaging, and he unboxed it.
COPA: He was very clear it was Wright who downloaded the software to be used.
SM: He was asked what he preferred, and Gavin did the download.
COPA: Gavin said it was wright.
SM: Keyboard was in control of Gavin
COPA: Gavin said otherwise.
SM: that's incorrect.
COPA: First proof failed due to missing "S". What happened was he asked for "CSW" to be added.
SM: I don't know exactly.
COPA: Wright spotted the ommission?
SM: YEs
COPA: And you can't comment on the technical aspects of this?
SM: Correct
COPA: Do you remember Matonis arranging an intro to Mike Hearn?
SM: Yes
COPA: And attended dinner at Wild Honey?
SM: My favorite restaurant. Jon contacted me and said Hearn reached out to arrange a meeting. And I said I would ask. Craig said absolutely.
COPA: Hearn asked technical questions that Satoshi would know?
SM: He asked a lot of tech questions, yes. But I thought they were related to patents, and I told Craig not to answerr.
COPA: Mike says they were about basic features of bitcoin.
SM: Not how I recall it. After dinner, we exchanged 6-7 emails and had another meal with him and Bianchi and a coffee with Mike later too, and at no stage did Mike take any issue with the points you raise.
COPA: Mike says he wasn't impressed with Craig's answers.
SM: Well he didn't raise them in our many interactions after.
COPA: Craig was struggling with questions, so you cut him off.
SM: Lol no. Interesting because CAH was in Zurich with me not too long ago and asked for Mike's contact details, and they were going to Mike's house.
COPA: CSW's KC can ask about it. Mike went on not to offer any support for CSW after.
SM: He wasn't asked to. Mike wanted to meet. Mike and Gavin have a strong history. And he knew Jon. I wasn't surprised.
COPA: But his lack of support implies lack of interest.
SM: We didn't ask.
SM: Yes
COPA: And attended dinner at Wild Honey?
SM: My favorite restaurant. Jon contacted me and said Hearn reached out to arrange a meeting. And I said I would ask. Craig said absolutely.
COPA: Hearn asked technical questions that Satoshi would know?
SM: He asked a lot of tech questions, yes. But I thought they were related to patents, and I told Craig not to answerr.
COPA: Mike says they were about basic features of bitcoin.
SM: Not how I recall it. After dinner, we exchanged 6-7 emails and had another meal with him and Bianchi and a coffee with Mike later too, and at no stage did Mike take any issue with the points you raise.
COPA: Mike says he wasn't impressed with Craig's answers.
SM: Well he didn't raise them in our many interactions after.
COPA: Craig was struggling with questions, so you cut him off.
SM: Lol no. Interesting because CAH was in Zurich with me not too long ago and asked for Mike's contact details, and they were going to Mike's house.
COPA: CSW's KC can ask about it. Mike went on not to offer any support for CSW after.
SM: He wasn't asked to. Mike wanted to meet. Mike and Gavin have a strong history. And he knew Jon. I wasn't surprised.
COPA: But his lack of support implies lack of interest.
SM: We didn't ask.
COPA: It's right that in August 2016, EITC agreement was amended?
SM: Yes
COPA: You were involved in putting new agreement in place?
SM: Yes
COPA: BEcaue Wright hadn't fulfilled agreements, but would later?
SM: Yes
COPA: Did Wright ever make payment of termination fee?
SM: No
COPA: Why?
SM: Rob was gone, so Wright's ID wasn't issue. We wanted to focus on nChain strategy.
COPA: You gave up on ID of Satoshi?
SM: Correct
COPA: You refer to 2 unpleasant messages on twitter?
SM: We have all gotten awful messages.
COPA: You're aware he's also unpleasant online?
SM: I wish he wouldn't be, but yes.
COPA: You're aware Ayre has also pisted gleefully about bankrupting Wright's opponents?
SM: No
COPA: You were told about mock trial ahead of time?
SM: Yes
COPA: You wanted CA to come?
SM: Yes
COPA: You were going to have a real judge?
SM: Yes, I was told that. but was told to keep it secret.
COPA: That didn't alarm you?
SM: I didn't know then what I know now.
COPA: And reliance docs were used.
SM: Some
COPA: So, in front of Ayre...
SM: He wasn't there. He wanted nothing to do with it. Ali and Ager-H asked me not to tell CA what the event was until he was there. CA was goign to be in town anyways, so we had dinner, and CAH invited himself to dinner and explained what was to happen. CA said he wouldn't participate.
COPA: anbd Wright didn't participate very well?
SM: [laughs]. Me, CAH, Ted Loveday, And Fawn LaBrie were in the room. Me and Fawn didn't have any idea what it was about, and Craig wasn't told what it was until he was in the room.
COPA: And CSW didn't do well?
SM: He didn't do anything at all.
COPA: The email from CA. He says CSW should do a signing exercise.
SM: Signing exercise?
COPA: He says it's Ali's opinion you shoudl sign at Harvard.
SM: CAH and Ali claimed to have had an arrangement for Harvard to host a signing session, and have Gavin witness. And have it verified by Harvard. that was their plan.
COPA: Says after all the review of evidence, it was unclear if any was real and "you can't repay me the money for the litigation!" He paid for a lot of litigation expenses?
SM: I'm not sure of their relationship on loans or how it was constructed. I am the wrong person to ask.
COPA: Looks like spent significant sums on this?
SM: IDK, but I think I was told it was loans at some point.
COPA: Mentioning CG... "we will agree you forged some docs, but you are Satoshi..." Are you aware of that?
SM: No
COPA: What does that mean when he says "us spending toe to toe with COPA?"
SM: Could be him and his fam office.
COPA: Probably this litigation?
SM: Perhaps, but I'm not party to it.
COPA: Says he'll be in the soup kitchen if he loses...
SM: Very colorful
COPA: Says he won't be able to get a competent law firm when they find out I am out. Shows he was involved.
SM: I really wouldn't know.
COPA: You're not aware how Ayre knew so much about the mock trial?
SM: He was briefed by CAH and Ali.
COPA: And presumably after?
SM: Presumably
COPA: You have strong personal motivation to back up CSW as Satoshi?
SM: What you mean?
COPA: Your pitch to market for your business?
SM: It's never been pitched publicly. We did very well acquiring DeMorgan's patents. in the first year, we got 1000 patents distilled to about 400 of the most important patents in the blockchain space. The rate was remarkable the first 3 years. We have filed over 3000 patents globally to date and 600-700 have been granted. The nChain business today is what was intended when we set out in 2015. Craig isn't even an employee anymore. He consults our Swiss branch because he was inventing things that were not even for blockchain. Because of how UK law works, we had to do a carve out later to show nChain didn't have claim on non-blockchain patents. After he got UK citizenship, we finalized his consulting agreement for the 1st oc October.
COPA: BSV is also strongly linked to his claims isn't it?
SM: Linked to him. He always claimed it was scalable.
COPA: Calling it Satoshi Vision and associating to Craig implies it?
SM: Not important anymore.
COPA: nChain is the only dev firm?
SM: No
COPA: Devs are paid in BSV?
SM: Maybe for a time, but only for staff in the UK, I think, but I don't know.
COPA: Your family trust would benefit from CSW's success/
SM: I don't see it.
COPA: Your 2008 white paper story is a falsehood.
SM: Not true. Nobody can take away my experiences. I didn't imagine the drawing on white boards or conversations. Craig will continue to be an inventor with our Swiss branch, and he will innovate with our research team on nChain IP based on DeMorgan's IP. He's an inspiration and an enormous contributor to Teranode and unbounded scaling.
COPA: That's all.
Grab: Nothing from me.
Mellor: Help me with the USB stick in 2008. You give no detail on how you know it was 2008.
SM: White paper was released in 2008 on October 31. It was before then.
Mellor: How?
SM: I would have known if it was released.
Mellor: How?
SM: It was public
Mellor: But not neessarily well known
SM: That's my best understanding for how to place it on the calendar.
Mellor You talked vividly about CAH threatening to destroy you. How did you feel it would be carried out?
SM: Online attacks. He has a history of this type of behavior. Anyone with 5 minutes can clearly see the type of activity he has been involved in over the years. We didn't realize it at the time we hired him at nChain. We did a background check;
Mellor: What's the nature of the attcks?
SM: Personal info, constructing allegations about me. He said I'd never be able to work again. My reputation destroyed... Frankly, the reason I'm here is because I'm 68 years old. I'm not in my 20's looking to establish a career. I expect CAH in Norway at his mother's left this country because of illegal activity, and there are contempt proceedings per nChain... He has a 95k GBP judgment he owes. When he tells me that he will destroy my life if I attend court...
Mellor: You fired him?
SM: I did.
Mellor: Shows the balance of power?
SM: Terminated with cause. The details are substantial
Mellor: Has he carried out any attacks?
SM: Recordings, caricatures, internal memos with my name on them... Numerous things. There was an injunction granted. Through that, a number of orders were given.
Mellor: Injuntions on nChain confidential stuff?
SM: Yes
Grab: Matthews, you said CAH was temrinated for cause. What cause?
SM: We're getting into confidentiality. But it started with me receiving a comm from our desktop support term on 26 September alerting me that CAH had instructed them to open up nChain mail boxes for his personal review. 8 people. I was one of them. this was unusual and improper, so it was referred to me. I emailed back, CC'd CAH saying it was not authorized, illegal and he couldn't do this without board approval and legal advice. That triggered a series of events with CAH and some security people he hired to take over the office. They taped up the cameras, shredded docs in the legal office, escorted people out, and took over the server room doing who knows what.
Grab: Legal proceedings?
SM: Pending, yes.
Gunning: We will have Dr. Wuille's evidence to you today.
1 Hour BREAK!
SM: Yes
COPA: You were involved in putting new agreement in place?
SM: Yes
COPA: BEcaue Wright hadn't fulfilled agreements, but would later?
SM: Yes
COPA: Did Wright ever make payment of termination fee?
SM: No
COPA: Why?
SM: Rob was gone, so Wright's ID wasn't issue. We wanted to focus on nChain strategy.
COPA: You gave up on ID of Satoshi?
SM: Correct
COPA: You refer to 2 unpleasant messages on twitter?
SM: We have all gotten awful messages.
COPA: You're aware he's also unpleasant online?
SM: I wish he wouldn't be, but yes.
COPA: You're aware Ayre has also pisted gleefully about bankrupting Wright's opponents?
SM: No
COPA: You were told about mock trial ahead of time?
SM: Yes
COPA: You wanted CA to come?
SM: Yes
COPA: You were going to have a real judge?
SM: Yes, I was told that. but was told to keep it secret.
COPA: That didn't alarm you?
SM: I didn't know then what I know now.
COPA: And reliance docs were used.
SM: Some
COPA: So, in front of Ayre...
SM: He wasn't there. He wanted nothing to do with it. Ali and Ager-H asked me not to tell CA what the event was until he was there. CA was goign to be in town anyways, so we had dinner, and CAH invited himself to dinner and explained what was to happen. CA said he wouldn't participate.
COPA: anbd Wright didn't participate very well?
SM: [laughs]. Me, CAH, Ted Loveday, And Fawn LaBrie were in the room. Me and Fawn didn't have any idea what it was about, and Craig wasn't told what it was until he was in the room.
COPA: And CSW didn't do well?
SM: He didn't do anything at all.
COPA: The email from CA. He says CSW should do a signing exercise.
SM: Signing exercise?
COPA: He says it's Ali's opinion you shoudl sign at Harvard.
SM: CAH and Ali claimed to have had an arrangement for Harvard to host a signing session, and have Gavin witness. And have it verified by Harvard. that was their plan.
COPA: Says after all the review of evidence, it was unclear if any was real and "you can't repay me the money for the litigation!" He paid for a lot of litigation expenses?
SM: I'm not sure of their relationship on loans or how it was constructed. I am the wrong person to ask.
COPA: Looks like spent significant sums on this?
SM: IDK, but I think I was told it was loans at some point.
COPA: Mentioning CG... "we will agree you forged some docs, but you are Satoshi..." Are you aware of that?
SM: No
COPA: What does that mean when he says "us spending toe to toe with COPA?"
SM: Could be him and his fam office.
COPA: Probably this litigation?
SM: Perhaps, but I'm not party to it.
COPA: Says he'll be in the soup kitchen if he loses...
SM: Very colorful
COPA: Says he won't be able to get a competent law firm when they find out I am out. Shows he was involved.
SM: I really wouldn't know.
COPA: You're not aware how Ayre knew so much about the mock trial?
SM: He was briefed by CAH and Ali.
COPA: And presumably after?
SM: Presumably
COPA: You have strong personal motivation to back up CSW as Satoshi?
SM: What you mean?
COPA: Your pitch to market for your business?
SM: It's never been pitched publicly. We did very well acquiring DeMorgan's patents. in the first year, we got 1000 patents distilled to about 400 of the most important patents in the blockchain space. The rate was remarkable the first 3 years. We have filed over 3000 patents globally to date and 600-700 have been granted. The nChain business today is what was intended when we set out in 2015. Craig isn't even an employee anymore. He consults our Swiss branch because he was inventing things that were not even for blockchain. Because of how UK law works, we had to do a carve out later to show nChain didn't have claim on non-blockchain patents. After he got UK citizenship, we finalized his consulting agreement for the 1st oc October.
COPA: BSV is also strongly linked to his claims isn't it?
SM: Linked to him. He always claimed it was scalable.
COPA: Calling it Satoshi Vision and associating to Craig implies it?
SM: Not important anymore.
COPA: nChain is the only dev firm?
SM: No
COPA: Devs are paid in BSV?
SM: Maybe for a time, but only for staff in the UK, I think, but I don't know.
COPA: Your family trust would benefit from CSW's success/
SM: I don't see it.
COPA: Your 2008 white paper story is a falsehood.
SM: Not true. Nobody can take away my experiences. I didn't imagine the drawing on white boards or conversations. Craig will continue to be an inventor with our Swiss branch, and he will innovate with our research team on nChain IP based on DeMorgan's IP. He's an inspiration and an enormous contributor to Teranode and unbounded scaling.
COPA: That's all.
Grab: Nothing from me.
Mellor: Help me with the USB stick in 2008. You give no detail on how you know it was 2008.
SM: White paper was released in 2008 on October 31. It was before then.
Mellor: How?
SM: I would have known if it was released.
Mellor: How?
SM: It was public
Mellor: But not neessarily well known
SM: That's my best understanding for how to place it on the calendar.
Mellor You talked vividly about CAH threatening to destroy you. How did you feel it would be carried out?
SM: Online attacks. He has a history of this type of behavior. Anyone with 5 minutes can clearly see the type of activity he has been involved in over the years. We didn't realize it at the time we hired him at nChain. We did a background check;
Mellor: What's the nature of the attcks?
SM: Personal info, constructing allegations about me. He said I'd never be able to work again. My reputation destroyed... Frankly, the reason I'm here is because I'm 68 years old. I'm not in my 20's looking to establish a career. I expect CAH in Norway at his mother's left this country because of illegal activity, and there are contempt proceedings per nChain... He has a 95k GBP judgment he owes. When he tells me that he will destroy my life if I attend court...
Mellor: You fired him?
SM: I did.
Mellor: Shows the balance of power?
SM: Terminated with cause. The details are substantial
Mellor: Has he carried out any attacks?
SM: Recordings, caricatures, internal memos with my name on them... Numerous things. There was an injunction granted. Through that, a number of orders were given.
Mellor: Injuntions on nChain confidential stuff?
SM: Yes
Grab: Matthews, you said CAH was temrinated for cause. What cause?
SM: We're getting into confidentiality. But it started with me receiving a comm from our desktop support term on 26 September alerting me that CAH had instructed them to open up nChain mail boxes for his personal review. 8 people. I was one of them. this was unusual and improper, so it was referred to me. I emailed back, CC'd CAH saying it was not authorized, illegal and he couldn't do this without board approval and legal advice. That triggered a series of events with CAH and some security people he hired to take over the office. They taped up the cameras, shredded docs in the legal office, escorted people out, and took over the server room doing who knows what.
Grab: Legal proceedings?
SM: Pending, yes.
Gunning: We will have Dr. Wuille's evidence to you today.
1 Hour BREAK!
This X thread brought to you in part by the Bezel "Refer a Friend" Program. If you're in the market for a timepiece, read on.
As a lover of vintage and modern mechanical watches, I use Bezel for my purchasing needs for a few reasons:
Convenience: Shop thousands of the most collectable watches on the planet from all of the top brands, all in one place.
Authenticity: Everything is sent to Bezel's in-house experts for multi-point Bezel certification before it gets shipped.
Concierge: Whether you want to source a hard to find watch or need recommendations, your private client advisor.
For a limited time, the promo code KURTWUCKERTJR will save you $200 any watch sold through Bezel.
Shop Now 👉shop.getbezel.com
As a lover of vintage and modern mechanical watches, I use Bezel for my purchasing needs for a few reasons:
Convenience: Shop thousands of the most collectable watches on the planet from all of the top brands, all in one place.
Authenticity: Everything is sent to Bezel's in-house experts for multi-point Bezel certification before it gets shipped.
Concierge: Whether you want to source a hard to find watch or need recommendations, your private client advisor.
For a limited time, the promo code KURTWUCKERTJR will save you $200 any watch sold through Bezel.
Shop Now 👉shop.getbezel.com
If you would like 5 minute video summaries of every section of trial, become a premium subscriber for $2.99/month
Summary of this section is uploading now!
Summary of this section is uploading now!
And here's the morning summary! Must subscribe to view.
https://x.com/kurtwuckertjr/status/1759937047148593458?s=20
AAAAND WE ARE BACK
COPA: Calling Mr Lee. You recognize your witness statement? It's true?
Lee: Yes
Grab: You are the lead of Spiral?
Lee: Spiral is a company inside of block. [Very San Fran guy]
Grab: What is "lead?"
Lee: I'm in charge
Grab: CEO?
Lee: No
Grab: Spiral isn't a corporate entity?
Lee: It's a team
Grab: And block is a West Coast tech co?
Lee: Yes
Grab: You're not for profit?
Lee: Yes. We're not technically Nonprofit, but our goal is not to generate profit.
Grab: Has no business model?
Lee: Yes
Grab: Annual budget from Block?
Lee: Yes, about $10,000,000 in 2023. It's 20% higher every year.
Grab: Is the budget set by Block?
Lee: Yes
Grab: As the result as planning including you?
Lee: Yes
Grab: Who do you sit down with to determine?
Lee: CEO and CFO primarily
Grab: You use the word "invest" the funds into work. Why use that work instead of use?
Lee: Good question. We use the funds in 2 ways. 1: pay employees. 2: grant program funds Bitcoin devs. Not in equity.
Grab: Use is probably a better word?
Lee: I agree
Grab: Is it fair to assume you use the funds as a matter of agreement between you and Block?
Lee: We have a lot of independence. We decide how funds are used.
Grab: So it's you?
Lee: Yes
Grab: Says Spiral has total independence. What does that mean?
Lee: What we do is at our discretion. No pressure applied to make sure we do Block's bidding.
Grab: Block's aims here?
Lee: Spiral's aims.
Grab: What's in it for Block then?
Lee: i'll give my opinion
Grab: I'd hope so
Lee: We believe in the importance of the bitcoin ecosystem. Block sees Spiral as important in bitcoin succeeding to create business opportunities for Block. What Jack Dorsey says is that it's purely to benefit bitcoin and its adoption.
Grab: You're keen to emphasize your independence. What makes YOU independent member of COPA?
Lee: First, I'm not representing Block's interests as a board member of COPA. Second, I'm a rep of bitcoin and cryptocurrency ecosystem and I'm friends with open source devs.
Grab: Are you independent of COPA then?
Lee: I'm one of 3 independent board members of COPA. We don't represent our companies here, but the ecosystem's
Grab: So you're paid by Block. What about the other board members of COPA?
Lee: One is Paradigm VC and the other was CoinCenter but they resigned.
Grab: Who are the non-independent members?
Lee: One from Block. the others from other companies.
Grab: they're not independent?
Lee: Block's is meant to represent Block's interests, for example.
Grab: You reach out to other independent people. Why is independence so critical to you in your testimony?
Lee: Well, COPA isn't for Block or any one company. anyone can join. Ind people are just other startups and stuff in crypto.
COPA: Calling Mr Lee. You recognize your witness statement? It's true?
Lee: Yes
Grab: You are the lead of Spiral?
Lee: Spiral is a company inside of block. [Very San Fran guy]
Grab: What is "lead?"
Lee: I'm in charge
Grab: CEO?
Lee: No
Grab: Spiral isn't a corporate entity?
Lee: It's a team
Grab: And block is a West Coast tech co?
Lee: Yes
Grab: You're not for profit?
Lee: Yes. We're not technically Nonprofit, but our goal is not to generate profit.
Grab: Has no business model?
Lee: Yes
Grab: Annual budget from Block?
Lee: Yes, about $10,000,000 in 2023. It's 20% higher every year.
Grab: Is the budget set by Block?
Lee: Yes
Grab: As the result as planning including you?
Lee: Yes
Grab: Who do you sit down with to determine?
Lee: CEO and CFO primarily
Grab: You use the word "invest" the funds into work. Why use that work instead of use?
Lee: Good question. We use the funds in 2 ways. 1: pay employees. 2: grant program funds Bitcoin devs. Not in equity.
Grab: Use is probably a better word?
Lee: I agree
Grab: Is it fair to assume you use the funds as a matter of agreement between you and Block?
Lee: We have a lot of independence. We decide how funds are used.
Grab: So it's you?
Lee: Yes
Grab: Says Spiral has total independence. What does that mean?
Lee: What we do is at our discretion. No pressure applied to make sure we do Block's bidding.
Grab: Block's aims here?
Lee: Spiral's aims.
Grab: What's in it for Block then?
Lee: i'll give my opinion
Grab: I'd hope so
Lee: We believe in the importance of the bitcoin ecosystem. Block sees Spiral as important in bitcoin succeeding to create business opportunities for Block. What Jack Dorsey says is that it's purely to benefit bitcoin and its adoption.
Grab: You're keen to emphasize your independence. What makes YOU independent member of COPA?
Lee: First, I'm not representing Block's interests as a board member of COPA. Second, I'm a rep of bitcoin and cryptocurrency ecosystem and I'm friends with open source devs.
Grab: Are you independent of COPA then?
Lee: I'm one of 3 independent board members of COPA. We don't represent our companies here, but the ecosystem's
Grab: So you're paid by Block. What about the other board members of COPA?
Lee: One is Paradigm VC and the other was CoinCenter but they resigned.
Grab: Who are the non-independent members?
Lee: One from Block. the others from other companies.
Grab: they're not independent?
Lee: Block's is meant to represent Block's interests, for example.
Grab: You reach out to other independent people. Why is independence so critical to you in your testimony?
Lee: Well, COPA isn't for Block or any one company. anyone can join. Ind people are just other startups and stuff in crypto.
Grab: Here's welcome to Meta joining in January 2022. the biggest crypto patent member. They would also join the board. Shane O'Reilly rep'ing Meta to COPA's Board... You see that?
Lee: Yes
Grab: We are told each COPA member is required to stay for 3 years before they can withdraw. Am I right in thinking Meta withdrew from COPA?
Lee: Correct
Grab: Within the 3 year. did they give notice?
Lee: I wasn't part of comms
Grab: Do you know why they withdrew?
Lee: No
Grab: So, as a board member of COPA, you don't know
Lee: I'm a board member of COPA.
Grab: Yes. So you should know.
Lee: I wasn't told why they left.
Grab: Rather distressing to have an enormous member leave?
Lee: I wasn't surprised. When they joined, they had Libra. They wound it down, so I'm not surprised they weren't interested anymore.
Grab: Meta was on the member list here
Lee: Yes
Grab: Here, they're gone.
Lee: Yes
Grab: What can you tell us about Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund?
Lee: It was created to help open source devs in bitcoin defend in the face of litigation. And I forget when it was formed. 2-3 years ago. Jack Dorsey and Alex Marcos helped.
Grab: We see Dorsey, founder of Block, Alex Marcos, Jess Jonas, etc.. You know them?
Lee: I do
Grab: This fund publishes news about cases it supports, doesn't it?
Lee: I'm not aware.
Grab: You've seen this?
Lee: I don't believe I have
Grab: Dealing with this litigation. There's a reference to 50 instances of forgery of CSW's key reliance docs. Haven't seen?
Lee: No
Grab: Nov 2, 2023. Couple days after amended pleading from COPA in this litigation setting out details of forgery allegations. You haven't seen?
Lee: No
Grab: Who is responsible for putting this info out?
Lee: IDK
Grab: Guess?
Lee: Jess Jones was hired to work on it, so I'd guess that it's her.
Grab: You said the fund funds the devs. Do you know if they're funding devs in this litigation?
Lee: It's a joint trial, so I don't know the facts. I'd guess it's helping in at least some of the cases joined to this.
Grab: I ask because Gunning was pleading poverty. You seem to think they're likely funded out of this fund?
Lee: I'd guess.
Grab: That's the function of a fund isn't it?
Lee: Yes.
Mellor: any re-exam?
No
Released.
Hough: Professor MacFarland has witness statement out.
ALL DONE!
Lee: Yes
Grab: We are told each COPA member is required to stay for 3 years before they can withdraw. Am I right in thinking Meta withdrew from COPA?
Lee: Correct
Grab: Within the 3 year. did they give notice?
Lee: I wasn't part of comms
Grab: Do you know why they withdrew?
Lee: No
Grab: So, as a board member of COPA, you don't know
Lee: I'm a board member of COPA.
Grab: Yes. So you should know.
Lee: I wasn't told why they left.
Grab: Rather distressing to have an enormous member leave?
Lee: I wasn't surprised. When they joined, they had Libra. They wound it down, so I'm not surprised they weren't interested anymore.
Grab: Meta was on the member list here
Lee: Yes
Grab: Here, they're gone.
Lee: Yes
Grab: What can you tell us about Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund?
Lee: It was created to help open source devs in bitcoin defend in the face of litigation. And I forget when it was formed. 2-3 years ago. Jack Dorsey and Alex Marcos helped.
Grab: We see Dorsey, founder of Block, Alex Marcos, Jess Jonas, etc.. You know them?
Lee: I do
Grab: This fund publishes news about cases it supports, doesn't it?
Lee: I'm not aware.
Grab: You've seen this?
Lee: I don't believe I have
Grab: Dealing with this litigation. There's a reference to 50 instances of forgery of CSW's key reliance docs. Haven't seen?
Lee: No
Grab: Nov 2, 2023. Couple days after amended pleading from COPA in this litigation setting out details of forgery allegations. You haven't seen?
Lee: No
Grab: Who is responsible for putting this info out?
Lee: IDK
Grab: Guess?
Lee: Jess Jones was hired to work on it, so I'd guess that it's her.
Grab: You said the fund funds the devs. Do you know if they're funding devs in this litigation?
Lee: It's a joint trial, so I don't know the facts. I'd guess it's helping in at least some of the cases joined to this.
Grab: I ask because Gunning was pleading poverty. You seem to think they're likely funded out of this fund?
Lee: I'd guess.
Grab: That's the function of a fund isn't it?
Lee: Yes.
Mellor: any re-exam?
No
Released.
Hough: Professor MacFarland has witness statement out.
ALL DONE!
This X thread brought to you in part by the Bezel "Refer a Friend" Program. If you're in the market for a timepiece, read on.
As a lover of vintage and modern mechanical watches, I use Bezel for my purchasing needs for a few reasons:
Convenience: Shop thousands of the most collectable watches on the planet from all of the top brands, all in one place.
Authenticity: Everything is sent to Bezel's in-house experts for multi-point Bezel certification before it gets shipped.
Concierge: Whether you want to source a hard to find watch or need recommendations, your private client advisor.
For a limited time, the promo code KURTWUCKERTJR will save you $200 any watch sold through Bezel.
Shop Now 👉shop.getbezel.com
As a lover of vintage and modern mechanical watches, I use Bezel for my purchasing needs for a few reasons:
Convenience: Shop thousands of the most collectable watches on the planet from all of the top brands, all in one place.
Authenticity: Everything is sent to Bezel's in-house experts for multi-point Bezel certification before it gets shipped.
Concierge: Whether you want to source a hard to find watch or need recommendations, your private client advisor.
For a limited time, the promo code KURTWUCKERTJR will save you $200 any watch sold through Bezel.
Shop Now 👉shop.getbezel.com
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
