Thread by @CryptoDevil

With yesterday's highlights exposing @dr_cswright's utterly incomprehensible excuses over his C++ claims and having his counsel try and insist that Satoshi had sent coins to Zooko who said that was simply not true, let's see what today's hilarity brings!

https://twitter.com/CryptoDevil/status/1760613028326727952

@Dr_CSWright @OntierLLP H: "No this system simply does not work the way you are claiming.2
W: "NO YOU SIMPLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE LIVE WORKS!"
H: We have 3 independent reasons showing the entries have been backdated
W: "NO WE HAVE SCHEMA VERSION. IT IS ON THE WEBSITE!"

@Dr_CSWright @OntierLLP H: "I'm not disputing updates occur I'm disputing it creates misleading entry data"
W: "When you load what would have been the new system in 2016 YOU HAVE TO DO THE UPDATE. MYOB FORCES YOU TO UPGRADE YOU DON'T HAVE A CHOICE"

@Dr_CSWright @OntierLLP H: "I put it to you that your explanations are simply false"
W: "NO I PUT IT TO YOU THAT THE EXPERTS SIMPLY DIDN'T DO WHAT I SAID THEY SHOULD DO"
H: "So you, the person who has an interest in claiming what are you claiming is the only person who says this"

@Dr_CSWright @OntierLLP H: "Going to the Papa Neema emails. My Mayaka worked for Abacus Seychelles in the past which provided company formation services, yes?"
W: "Yes they did"
H: "We can agree he provided services in relation to this and that you say he now lives in Nairobi, Kenya."
W: "yes"

@Dr_CSWright @OntierLLP H: "These Pape Neema email you claim are legitimate. You requested [company docs] in these emails"
W: "I said for him to send them to Stefan Matthews yes"
H: "You said it was invoices for the 2011 period for these companies"
W: "Yes"

@Dr_CSWright @OntierLLP H: "This email from Papa Neema contains 3 files, do you see that?"
W: "I don't see the attachments"
H: "But do you see them named there?"
W: "I do"

@Dr_CSWright @OntierLLP H: "Do you see they contains invoices for services, a version of a Timecoin paper and another which contained a pdf version of a Timecoin paper. That was Madden found. Why does it have a Tulip Trading reference at the bottom?"
W: "Follow the line down Tulip Trading is me?"

@Dr_CSWright @OntierLLP H: "So you personal rcjbr had a Tulip Trading signare block?"
W: "I have 3 emails which all come from the same google mailbox. jcjbr dot com dot org and Tulip Trading all come from the same mailbox"
H: "So you say that depending on which computer you are using it would show diff?

@Dr_CSWright @OntierLLP W: "I do yes"
H: "This email supposedly shows emails from Papa Neema"
W: "Not supposedly, it was"
H: "Those emails forward a zip file with screenshot imgages"

@Dr_CSWright @OntierLLP H: "Supposedly showing that Mr Ager Hansen has asked for these [screenshots] and that Mr Mayaka is saying there 'you know I've always been loyal to you and always will be'"
W: "Yes"
H: "We dispute that the signature block is set depending on the computer you login from"

@Dr_CSWright @OntierLLP W: "I can show you how it is done"
H: "No we dispute it. Moving on can you see the timestamp for these emails?"
W: "Denis [Mayaka] works on London time"
H: "Even though he is supposedly in Kenya?"
W: "Yes he has British clients"

@Dr_CSWright @OntierLLP H: "But the timezone is consistent with somebody being in the UK isn't it?"
W: "No I used to have my timezone set to American when I was doing American work"
H: "We see this Timecoin document 'a peer to peer solution' it is dated to the period around the Bitcoin WP"
W: "Yes"

@Dr_CSWright @OntierLLP H: "You claim it is an extende version of what you had developed for Bitcoin for timestamping files"
W: "I used openoffice to type and then converted it to latex"
H: "It would have been perfectly possible to write this document today and backdate it"
W: "It would be possible...

@Dr_CSWright @OntierLLP W: "that Unicorns exist and there is the illuminatti and we are all living a dream yes"
Mellor: "Can we please get back on track. What counsel's question was, would it be possible to write this document today and backdate it?
W: "It wouldn't be feasible, I would need *waffle*"

@Dr_CSWright @OntierLLP W: "I would need [lists of loads of old tools that would be needed] I don't think it's feasible. I guess you could find the source code, unpatch it, rebuild the unpatched, find windows, remove its patches that MS forces and do it. Technically it is possible as is guessing privkey

@Dr_CSWright @OntierLLP H: "I put it to you, as Mr Madden describes, it isn't particular difficult to make a backdated document like this"
W: "No you couldn't you would have to talk to the Devs, which I wouldn't have done because they are part of @opencryptoorg and you have [all these steps to do]"

@Dr_CSWright @OntierLLP @opencryptoorg H: "Well that is simply disputed. I think we can take a break here M'Lord"
M: "Agreed"

We are on short break.
Wow CSW's shouty word-salad ranting is NOT serving him well. His contortions to explain the forgeries are just not credible and are painfully obvious attempts to deflect

And we are back for more of this punishing process!

H: "Continuing with the Time.2 document. Mr Madden found they were images of lower resolution than the ones found in the Bitcoin WP"
W: "Yes I was experimenting with different things at the time"

W: "The Bitcoin WP was done in latex and the difference when you export it..."
H: "Well we dispute the WP was done in latex. The description of Mr Madden shows that these images are [just ripped from the Bitcoin WP] aren't they?"
W: "No I was experimenting with diff processes"

H: "So you wanted to produce worse looking images? I put it to you that this could have just been created by taking a screenshot of the existing [images in the Bitcoin WP]"
W: "No I can do different processes and I was experimenting"

H: "I put it to you that it is perfectly simple to do and I put it to you that is what you did [forge the document]"
W: "No everything I do I am being accused of forgeries, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. You already know I have image files in latex going back"

W: "I could have had them in high resolution, I could do a screenshot I have an 8K card I would have done them way better"
H: "I'm not interested in how you claim they could be done better. Do you accept the findings that they could have been done?"
W: "Possibly"

H: "I put it to you that the date of the emails [conflicts with the drive you say you found a few days later]"
W: "The samsung drive wasn't imaged correctly"
H "This is a drive with documents you never had previously and within the space of a few days you get files from 2 sources

H: "with files from Mr Mayaka and you happily discovering this drive suddenly, that is what you are claiming?"
W: "Denis had those documents already"
H: "Mr Mayaka send the 4 Abacus invoices and this one document, right? He doesn't send ANY other company information, M&A etc.?"

H: "He sends FOUR invoices and a paper which is presenting itself as put forward by Info Def. That document doesn't refer to ANY of the seychelles company does it?"
W: "Well we moved things around between companies"
H: "Info Def was NOT a company Mayaka had any connection to"

W: "He knew the assets were being transferred across and I went through the proces with im"
H: "Which jurisdiction is Info Def related to?"
W: "Australia and Seychelles"
H: "So you ask for doc related to WII and Tulip Trading and you get Info Def invoices and a WP?"

H: "It just happens to be that he sends these document just at the time you were needing such things?"
W: "My Mayaka does this because he has been working for me for 14 years, my business is 60% of his work"
H: "Yes but he didn't send anything through for the companies you asked"

W: "There are requests going through now about them"
H: "I put it to you that it just beggars belief that these things would all just happen at the time you desperately needed them to"
W: "No, not at all"

H: "Mr Madden explains that the [dates all have timestamp anomolies] apart from that are you aware that BOTH experts found that the dates were linked to the computer clock backdating found for the information on the samsung drive"
W: "Not that's not correct"

W: "No it's down to xcopy when you copy files the created date is changed and can be anomolous"
H: "Well the experts have refuted what you claim about how xcopy does this"
W: "No they refused to conduct the experiment I told them to do"
H: "Returning to the content of the doc"

H: "Going to the REAL Bitcoin WP *quotes the abstract from it*, that's the one released in 2009 isn't it?" Looking at your abstract from that Timecoin WP of yours is slightly longer, on the right of the screen this is the Timecoin paper supposedly dating from May 2008..."

H: "...which I have already put to you is a forgery. And this paper contains elements from the 2009 Bitcoin WP"
W: "I told you I don't work in a linear fashion"
H: "Would you accept that the Timecoin paper supposed dated May 2008 is materially different from the one in the emails

W: "No they are not different"
H: "But they have different language"
W: "Well they deal with different things in the process *talks about tripwire security function* that one is part of the one of the left, the other one is more about timestamping"

H: "Let's focus on the one on the right, you can see whole sections from the Bitcoin [2009] WP, I put to you that this is evidence of forgery that is has section the same as the Bitcoin WP *reads through multiple elements that are the same*
W: "Yep. Yep. Correct."

H: "looking at your doc on the left which you say you created in April 2009, Bitcoin had been in operation for 3 months"
W: "Well a little bit more than 3 months"
H: "The Papa Neema WP contains the same wording as the other one you created"

W: *waffles and goes off topic*
Mellor: "Try and stick to the question please"
W: "I have the same title on 25 of my doctorates"
H: "The abstract on these documents is the same"

H: *reads extract from fake WP which is presented as coming from his Info Def company, it contains text extremely similar to the Bitcoin WP* "What you have done is include the contents of the abstract from the Bitcoin WP in March and then made some changes to the contents to fit"

W: "No I did some drafts"
H: "You say this was a marketing document, it is pretty shoddy work to have a document containing spelling mistake presented to clients as a marketing doc. It is YOUR additions to this document which contain the spelling mistakes."
W: "There were drafts"

H: "There is ref to honest nodes outpacing attacker [same as Bitcoin WP]"
W: "This is a part of Bitcoin and this extends Bitcoin"
H: "It is a critical element of whatever you are presenting here"
W: "It is part of my system [both]"

H: "Please read these and explain what substantive differences exist between the two"
W: "They are substantially different systems I'm not going to go through word by word unless you want me to. They are both my documents and have I written the same thing in multiple documents"

H: "The second paragraph only refers to an electronic payment system"
W: "No that's not correct, if you look it talks about the chronological order of transactions"
H: "It doesn't say anything about the tripwire system you later claim it uses"
W: "It does use tripwire"

H: "Where in the doc is the word tripwire."
W: SHOUTS "A PEER TO PEER SYSTEM TO CHRONOLOGICALLY RECORD A SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS"
*continues to shout about it describing what tripwire does even if it doesn't say the word tripwite"

H: "I put it to you that the only difference between your Timecoin paper and the Bitcoin WP is that you write about tokens instead of coins"
W: "No it was about the system being able to operation with micropayments. I said to Marrtin in 2009 and have been saying the entire time..

W: "all you need is a change in the code and it will work like a tripwire system"
H: "So here we can see another paraphrase of the Bitcoin WP"
W: "No that is an extension where multiple people who have now released the emails which explain what this is"

H: "And below this image we have some waffle about the cost of libery being eternal vigilance"
W: "NO IT IS NOT WAFFLE. THE LASER EYED BTC LOT TAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT, IT WAS PART OF MY INFO DEFENSE TRADEMARK"

H: "There is nothing in there about proof of work. You've accepted that hash-based POW was a critical part of the system [but doesn't mention it]"
W: "Well Adam Back talks about n bits being a part of the code as a cost function..."
H: "It is a simple point, YOUR Timecoin paper

H: "describes [in the abstract] about POW but the content makes no mention of it"
W: "No Mr Back was wrong about this *SHOUTY WAFFLE ABOUT VALIDATION NOT USING PROOF OF WORK*
H: "To record transactions on the blockchain requires POW doesn't it?"

W: "No it is essential for the nodes"
H: "So the client this document is meant to be a marketing paper for will be scratching their head wondering why it mentions POW [in the abstract] but not anywhere in the contents!"
W: "I don't need to use it, it is my system"

W: "What we talk about in Timecoin is that the people run the SPV and this is where I started uses a system which has a hash database *waffle waffle*
H: "No I put it to you that your proposed system [simply doesn't contain any POW element the abstract copied from the WP has]"

H: "In the Bitcoin WP...[described the concept of the coinbase tx] correct?"
W: "Yes"
H: "It is the consensus mechanism adopted by the system"
W: "No it is given by me. There is no voting you use my system or do not you cannot change the protocol"

H: "Your document says the Bitcoin has traditions, it had been running for a few months it doesn't really have traditions does it."
W: "Well I could show you a thesaurus which explains the use of that word"
H: "I put it to you that it was Chat-GPT you were using and put the wrong

H: "...word it simply doesn't fit with the statement being made"
W: "No I could explain to you how that word applies"
H: "Bitcoin WP calls itself an electronic cash system [not a timestamping system]"
W: "I explained to Marrti that it could be used for that"

H: "And here we see you have used an image from the Bitcoin WP and then paraphrased the text that it is related to"
W: "No that is a H-Mac extension that existed before the Bitcoin system existed"
H: "No that's not what Mr Pang said it is about"
W: "He's wrong"

H: *discusses the hacker's ruin concept not being in the content of the paper he submitted even though it is in its abstract*
W: "When you are timestamping files you have no interest in double-spending" *waffle*
H: "The fact is that the abstract contains it but not the content"

W: *waffles about securing files*
H: "Let's go back. The abstract in your doc contains discussion about the hash-based proof of work and the longest chain outpacing attackers, but the content later in the paper makes no mention of it"
W: *starts waffling about Lassiters/Vodaphone

W: "These nodes signed everything without proof of work, which meant all nodes had to be trusted. They all had their own nodes, a different foundation:
H: "I have made the points to you that the Timecoin paper is clumsy mish-mash of the real Bitcoin WP... It is a forgery"

W: *rants about Marrti Malmi and @druidian secret conversations*
H: "If we can just stay on topic. Here the timestamps for these documents [4 invoices] show they were created over 2 years do you see that?"
W: "Yes"

@druidian H: "Is it right that the template for each contains the same mistake shown on each of the four invoices as i'nvoive' for 'invoice'"
W: "No you are confounding [things] he reused document"
H: "It is supposedly different templates with the same spelling error"

@druidian W: "He issued the document using [the same content from some of them]"
H: "This invoice is for WII and this is Tulip Trading and this shows a date you claim is a mistake. You HAVE to say the invoice date is wrong because the invoice numbers are out of order"

@druidian W: "No the digital signatures are Mr Mayaka's and you say he doesn't exist but some of Ontier's solicitors went and stayed with him for a month"
H: "There is no evidence of that Dr Wright. Mr Madden shows that these logo images match ones found on a wayback page"

@druidian H: "All the indications are that the Papa Neema emails are all forgeries put forward by you."
W: "No not at all"
H: "I put it to you that you could have called Mr Mayaka as a witness, what would have been the difficulty in having him as a witness to support your claim"

@druidian G: *objects*
H: "I am simply trying to establish if My Mayaka refused"
G: *objects to it being unnecessary and priveliged"
H; "Privelige is attached to communications about legal advice, not about asking if somebody has been requested to appear as a witness"

@druidian H: "Moving on, this invoice shows you purchasing Tulip Trading as an aged company in 2014"
W: "I remember you showing them to me. These were part of the Kleiman case and from machines imaged from people who worked for me and that the everything was compromised"
H: "so forgeries"

@druidian H: "It would be pretty odd for somebody to forge an Abacus invoice for Tulip trading and backdating it to 2011 when that is what you are attempting to claim is when you first had it incorporated"
W: *waffles about people working against him and with the ATO*

@druidian H: "This document on screen is a forgery and you can confirm that. You claim that this was a fake?"
W: "Yes it used information that happened but misrepresented it"
H: "And you reference DNS records didn't you?"
W: "Yes DNS etc."

@druidian H: "Mr Madden shows a copy of the DNS record, do you see that?"
W: "I do"
H: "There an entry not relating to Abacus offshore, then there is a gap do you see that?"
W: "NO DNS WORKS FORM A TOP-DOWN SUB-STRUCTURE SO YOU CANNOT HAVE A GAP GOOGLE VERIFIES THE RECORD IS PROPAGATED...

@druidian W: *SHOUTY WAFFLE*
Mellor: "Dr Wright all that is being put to you is that there a gap in the data set out in this table you are being shoen"
W: NO I'M SAYING THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GAP IN THE DNS RECORDS IT DOESN'T EXIST. I HAVE PAPER ON THIS GOING BACK TO THE 90'S

@druidian W; "DNS MUST PROPAGATE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GAP. IT DOESN'T EXIST. THE FIRST THING GOOGLE WILL DO IS VALIDATE YOUR DNS RECORD. IF IT IS NOT VALID THEY WON'T ACCEPT YOU. WHAT THIS IS TALKING ABOUT IS THERE CAN BE A CHANGE IN THE UNDERYLING INFORMATION BUT NOT MAIN DOMAIN"

@druidian H: "But it shows that Abacus domain could not be [what the forgeries show it to be]
W: *SHOUTY OBJECTIONS TO WHAT IS HOWN*
H: *interrupting* "It says here that gaps may be due to network problems and a failure by the provider to check"
W: "NO ABSOLUTELY NOT"

@druidian W: *RANTS ABOUT PROPAGATION AND GOOGLE*
H: *interrupts* "Moving on...you refer to what you describe as an MX record showing Abacus dns provider as [one dns service provider and another] but the timing of the change in an email server doesn't not have to match change in provider"

@druidian H: "This is a change in registrar being shown"
W: "Unrelated to change in MX records. ALL OF MY SEARCHES WERE MX THERE ARE NAMESERVERS MR MADDEN HAS INTENTIONALLY CONFLATED RECORDS. I have papers going back to the 1990's one of the reason @dakami hated me is because of my books

@druidian @dakami W: "I understand DNS very very well i was involved*rants*"
H: *interrupts* "We have to move on. I am putting to you now that GoDaddy is shown as register from 24th April 2014 you see that?"
W: YOU ARE CONFLATING NS RECORDS SOA RECORDS WITH MX RECORDS AND SAYING LOOK OVER HERE!

@druidian @dakami H: "The email server does NOT have to change at the same time as the other changes are made"
W: YOU ARE CONFUSING GODADDY AND GOOGLE ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE SAYING LOOK OVER HERE AND DOING YOU WIZARD THING I THIN IT IS RATHER DISINGENUS"
H: You're the one who said it was godaddy!

@druidian @dakami H: "you claim to have performed a DKIM check. It is a method of authentication emails isn't it?"
W: NO IT DEALS WITH DIGITAL SIGNATURES
H: "Let's take a look *goes on to explain how DKIM works to verify at the point of receipt that the email is from its stated domain*"

@druidian @dakami W: IF YOU HAVE IT SET UP
H: "It's right that many domains rotate and change their keys periodically. So a DKIM auth carried out today on a 10 year old email isn't a valid test of auth is it?"
W: NO NOT THE WAY YOU ARE EXPLAINING IT THE WAY YOU HAVE THIS WORK IS THIS TOOL HAS...

@druidian @dakami W: 20 YEARS OF SIGNATURES IN IT
H: "Mr Madden said your test just isn't legitimate.
W: "I'm saying he is incompetent."
H: "Your DKIM test is not a valid test of authenticity and the real Satoshi would have known how to test for this properly"
W: NO BECAUSE I AM SATOSHI! *rants*

@druidian @dakami H: "Dr Wright, as with many things this is disputed"
H: "Those are all my questions"
Mellor: "We'll continue with Mr Gunning after lunch"

And we break for lunch. Holy crap CSW was becoming unhinged talking about unicorns and wizards!

This afternoon is going to get messy!

Key points so far:
1. The fabled Timecoin paper names things in its abstract that don't appear anywhere in the body of the paper itself - It's yet another sloppy thrown-together mishmash of technical word-salad
2. Craig is raising his voice a lot more & ranting about conspiracies

A helpful twitter user just brought up something I had missed in my transcript, that @opencryptoorg actually have @dr_cswright's Chat-GPT logs!

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!
Oh God I hope Gunning goes to that this afternoon!

https://twitter.com/speedbumpws/status/1761025628013244812

We're back and Gunning is asking about how Wright keeps his WP files and if there are latex versions of it

G: "We can see where copies are stored on Overlead and if what you say on your statement is true then it would be of greatest important"
W: "It is true"

G: "If your story is true then these docs would be the dna proof of the origin of the Bitcoin WP"
W: "It is true"
G: "So you surely would have understood the importance of preserving the documents"
W: "No they were used in ongoing research"

G: "You claim to be a digital forensic expert so you should know the importance of document retention"
W: "No I wasn't thinking about needing to use anything to prove I am Satoshi. I have lots of documents published about forensics"

G: "Going to these published documents they are generally very brief and contain much of the same content. This one here [described the importance of document retention"
W: "Well this was part of the reason for creating bitcoin"

G: "You describe the grave consequence of the destruction of documents"
W: "No if you go back to my table you see that seven years is long enough"
G: "I'm not interested in seven years ago I'm talking about what you've been doing these past few months"

G: *reads CSW's words saying that one can be found liable for destroying documents and submitting fake ones"
W: *rants about companies bought by companies bought by companies and the seven years policy exceeded several time*

G: "You were told to preserve documents for this case"
W: "Yes"
G: "We can tell the date for this document as the unix timestampe says 2023. It was the ones Shoosmiths described as the original WP latex files. You held them on there and the maths.old project shows you..

G: "...created the files within it in November 2023"
W: "As a demonstration yes"
G: "We can see the audit trail for Overlead shows you copying the bitcoin files in"
W: "No it is me loading the files in"

G: "We can see you made multiple changes to the Bitcoin WP latex files during November"
W: "I was making some demonstration involving my cookbook file"
G: "That cookbook file wasn't created untill December though"

W: "I was doing demonstrations and that was changing the dates of the files"
G: "We know when you did this because Shoosmiths told us. The changes you made included the part where you say there are spaced within words. Which also included adding and adjusting backslash/semicolon"

W: "It depends what the compiler is"
G: "No it doesn't!"
W: "Oh I thought you said thick space"
G: "You worked on these files for nearly 22 hours between the 17th and 19th November"
W: No I was doing demonstrations

G: "You worked for 3 hours [on this day]"
W: "No I was also working on my cookbook. I was demonstrating on what a no-skip file was and what one was, how the files are created"
G: "You then created a slack post about watermarking, you talk about [the WP] having watermarks in it"

G: "It is pretty remarkable that you put in comments about watermark in the [latex edits] and then there is a slack post describing that very same thing"
W: "It wasn't me that posted"
G: "Who was it, the tall guy?"
W: "I don't know"

G: "we can follow along this chart of the work you did and we can even see where you presumably stopped for lunch [from all your latex edits]"
W: "I was changing my cookbook to show the soliciators as a demonstration"
G: "This audit trail shows 22 hours of working on bitcoin wp"

G: "You then copied and pasted the contents of the bitcoin.old file into the new bitcoin project file and then made a series of changes"
W: "I did a demonstration"
G: "These changes included things to make the text of the latex file more closely match the text of the bitcoin wp"

G: "You were adjusting the size of the space skip process and you were adjusting the line breaks"
W: "I was showing how it was done"
G: "Our animation [starts animation] we can see the pages go from 1-5 at the top 6-10 at the bottom. The row from the spreadsheet you produced"

*overleaf audit trail proof animation is playing showing the edits CSW was making to the Bitcoin WP latex file he submitted*
G: "Do you remember the bit in red that flashed up, that was the conference call you had with Shoosmiths"

G: "What that animation shows is you adjusting and moving text, started page 1 and continued down the doc"
W: "To demonstrate what the commands do I had to put them in"
G: "Here there text you are working on is overlaid with the actual Bitcoin WP"

G: "It was all the same apart from page 1 wasn't it?"
W: "I started doing a demonstration to show how it was done"
G: "Let's play the animation further"

G: "We can see you were making changes one way and then another"
W: "I was doing a demonstration"
G: "You were trying to make it fit the actual Bitcoin WP"
W: "No I was showing them how it is created"
G: "I'm not interested in that only what you are doing"

G: "We can see the approach you are taking and I mentioned space skip which allows you to override the spacing and set your own and you introduced a number of them into the latex file didn't you?"
W: "Yes you can't just guess you have stretch and spaceskip you have 4 variables"

W: "It becomes a 3 body problem and [that is why I was trying different ones to get the right one]"
G: "If we go to row 345 this is a document that Stross-Friedberg prepared. We can see there's a record in relation to bitcoin file text. Shows the character at which the change is"

G: "Says [spaceskip technical results] It says November but we don't need to go into that. It shows that it was [you trying to match the orginal Bitcoin WP in your file]. Just before 'purely peer-to-peer' you inserted the spaceskip command didn't you"
W: "Yes a demonstration"

G: "Here this corresponds to row 345, you used a based param of 0.3em"
W: "Yes to demonstrate the differences"
G: "Do you know what 0.3em means"
W: "yes it is a standard marker space"
G: "You familiar with latex?"

W: "yes I've used it academically"
G: "It doesn't seem to me like these things are being done by somebody who knows what they are doing, there's a lot of faffing about. We can see you put 0.3em plus .4 em which would take it to a stretch of 0.7 em?"
W: "Yes to the whole line etc"

G: "You say to the whole line but you put in a lot of these commands, so the 0.3 plus the 0.4 goes to 0.7em?"
W: "Pretty much"
G: "You made a lot of changes to these parameters [again and again]
W: "Yes it was to show how complex it is and you cannot just set the value"

G: "When you muck around with the words you muck around with the spaces between words. So without the spaceskip command you could not get the words to fit in [your version of the bitcoin wp]"
W: "No you see I'd download the pdf file if I wanted to copy it and I would use python"

G: "If you were forging the document?"
W: "Yes [it would be a lot easier to just do that]"
*talk in court about where we are right now*
G: "So these 3 parameters shown on here, the 1st is the base spacing, right?"
W: "err it is vspace then we go to adust width"

G: "No that's not what I'm doing here"
W: "No that's wrong you *waffles*"
G: "You start off at 0.3em and you then increased it to 0.6em and then 0.2 em and a bit below that"
W: "This was for a demonstration"

G: "But none of this was done for Shoosmiths demonstration"
W: "I was recording this demonstration for other things"
G: "You record all the work you do on latex, how?"
W: "By taking screenshots"

W: *goes on explaining that all his changes were because of the 'three body problem' rather than him not knowing how to accurately get the result he needed in latex*
G: "You set it, then increased it, then reduced it. At one point LOWER than the base spacing, there's no point"

W: "I was doing this as a demonstration"
G: "We KNOW when you were doing things for Shoosmiths you were NOT doing this for that, you were doing THIS for yourself weren't you, tweaking params to make them fit the layout of the BItcoin WP:"
W: "NO I WAS DEMONSTRATION HOW IT WORKED"

G: "You were learning latex on the job here weren't you"
W: "No I've got latex files going back to BDO days"
G: "We'll go back to that later"
W: *rants about papers he wrote for universities in latex"
G: "Dr Wright WAIT for my quesions!"

G: "So you had to keep tweaking this so the word 'online' matched the position on the bitcoin wp"
W: "Not at all I was doing a demonstration"
G: "We see on the animation you moving the diagrams around and at different points you started change the invocation of the images"

G: "You were using text images at first then changed to pdf and we can see the changes taking place over time"
W: "Including putting jpegs etc so yes"
G: "We can see the timestamps on all of this being November 2023. This version you sent to Shoosmiths contained ALL of these"

W: "No the animation shows me going back to the file to show the recreation of them"
G: "You have submitted 4 version of the bitcoin wp haven't you. This application to adjourn the trial you confirm the opinion given about the latex file. You said you confirmed the facts as true"

G: "You confirmed these latex papers as being true"
W: "I was referring to the other ones and the ones on the drive etc"
G: "No you were referring to the version presented in this application"
W: "No I was referring to these ones"

G: "No let's check here, she says 'there are also a number of latex docs in CSW's control in addition to the ones found on CSW's drive"
W: *blames solicitors*
G: "No I am not going to allow you to blame your solicitors"

W: "No I am saying I don't always explain things the right way"
G: "You said you agreed with what she said"
W: "But what I read when I agree to something might be different to you"
G: "The whitepaper latex file [you were confirming]"

G: "Why didn't you clarify this supposed difference and instead just confirmed it was ture? You said they were the files on the BDO image"
W: "NO THE IMAGES ARE ON THE BDO IMAGE I'M SAYING HERE THAT THIS COMPILES INTO MY WHITEPAPER!"

G: *explains expert describing how each exported file has metadata showing when it was exported* "So there was information available to you when this was put to you?"
W: "No saying my account was from August and because I had the solicitors at my house and said to get paid a/c"

W: "My use of Overlead there was no history file, it was only when contacted by you guys etc that when I upgraded to the full version that I then had full history data"
G: "It was only at that time that you found out that Overleaf was recording EVERY keystroke you made"

W: "Potentiall I found out you could do a lot more than what we did on this *waffles*"
G: "Either you have lied about metadata not being on the [personal account] file or you did not know that it was being recorded, which is it?"
W: "No I *waffle*"

G: "We can see it says 'dr wright instructs me that the only material on the overlead account is a single bitcoin document and all the other are unrelated academic docs, that's not true is it?"
W: "No my other docs are not related"

G: "The maths.old folder was not irrelevant to the case, it contained the contents of the changed you then made to the whitepaper document you edited"
W: "No I had meetings demonstrating to my solicitors that's why it's ther"
G: "You created the folder in November 2023"

G: "We can see the date and time it was created"
W: "No I downloaded and uploaded the thing so it then gave it a new creation date"
G: "This is a letter from Shoosmiths 22nd Feb 2024 and they say 'as you note the maths.old project was created November 2023 and CSW said he merged

G: "..these docs from a previous project which he says he then deleted. Why have you lied to me about this basic fact?"
W: "I have not, I have copied between different Overleaf folders"
G: "I said you had deleted Overlead folders and you said NO I moved it, that is not correct"

W: "No that's not what I said"
G: "You deleted folders a couple of weeks before you submitted this application for an adjournment based on this. You MUST have known this was improper"
W: "No I was demonstrating how tiny tweaks are done to make it go back and forward etc"

W: "The only way I got the December stuff was by doing a series of exercises which I then showed my solicitors to say how important it was"
G: "what you said was the that is contained code that was materially identical to the original WP"
W: "with caveats that the version differ"

W: "That open symbol was not available in the demonstration versions I had"
G: "You created these documents in the week before you then claimed these docs [were contemporaenous proof]"
W: "I get told not to say things I told my solicitors"

G: "You filed a witness statement you knew would be served on us and used it to request an adjournment"
W: "No I did not want an adjournment, my solicitors did"
G: "I'm not interested in what you are claiming your solicitors did"
W: "YOU WANT ME TO PERJURE MYSELF TO GOD AND COURT

Mellor: "What you are claiming is all those changes shown were done for demonstration purposes but what was disclosed to the COPA solicitors was the end product..."
W: "WELL WHAT I.."
Mellor: "Let me speak"

Mellor: "Why submit the end product [as contemporaneous proof' when you are now saying the process leading to it was all part of a supposed demonstration"
W: "No I was showing them at my house the compiling of the latex wp and how teeny weeny differences can break the file etc"

Mellor: "Why didn't you just show the a bitcoin wp [in latex] that is materially identical to the bitcoin wp?"
W: "I did I.."
Mellor: "No, answer the question, why did you not just show them the [contemporaneous WP]?"
W: "Well I was having to show them the process"

Mellor: "So you are saying you had to reconstruct the whole thing with all these steps"
W: "Well I...*waffles about making changes then undoing them*"
G: "That is just ridiculous to claim you made these changes and then removed them when the trail shows what you did"

Time for a break!

Wow.
CSW has been called out by Judge Mellor for his contradictory claim where he'd filed for an adjournment of the case on the strength of a latex doc he now admits was a reconstruction!

And we are back. My poor fingers!

G: "We were looking at the PTR evidence submitted. You and your solicitors produced a compilation from the latex file. "
W: "My solicitors did, yes"

G: "We can see that they say about how the compiling created the end product and that this would explain any differences and that they say 'our client has, since the original wp was published has made a number of changes to the Bitcoin WP, [describes backticks] do you see that?"

G: "is says 'CSW intends to give in his witness account the details of the systems he used for this since the original release'. But this isn't true because it says you only made a few minor changes [that is not what the audit trail shows]"
W: "No the files I have are in evidence

G: "You refer to writing latex on a document. The document you are talking about is..."
W: "No I am talking about a hand-written document that is not a hand-written document"
G: "No you had hand-written 'latex' on this document and this document is a forgery isn't it?"
W: "No"

G: "You relied on this explanation to [cover for what the forensic audit showed]. You made no reference on THIS statement to [performing all these adjustments the audit trail showed]"
W: "The solicitors had already seen it in October 2023"

G: "In your 11th you DIDN'T mention all these edits you made"
W: "Well a lot of things got cut there was a lot of rambling"
G: "It wouldn't have been rambling to mention all the manipulation you had done on the latex file"
W: "They didn't see it had any value"

G: "Your 11th you say that the metadata [explains the pdf creation date can be set with latex command]. And that shows it being manually set for that date. Are you saying this is the command Satoshi used to set the date for this document?"
W: "No this is part of my ongoing work"

G: "What's the point of including a pdf-creation date command if it isn't one that Satoshi used?"
W: "Well, one, I am Satoshi, but this was just an example of what could be used"
G: "But why include it. The problem is the version you are talking about had a 6 hour diff in timezon

W: "-7 goes to minus 6 even you go to Summer time"
G: "We can see what it says"
W: "Yes if the time it -7 but Summer time changes it to -6"
G: "But Satoshi's WP didn't show any of that. You put in duff metadata in your witness statement didn't you?"
W: "No I told you Summer TIME"

G and W argue about difference in clock time relevance
Mellor: "But in latex the date and time would be automatically put in by the system"
W: "No you would still need to put it in if you don't want it to change naturally. The system clock would add 1 *waffle about GMT*"

Mellor: "I recall I previously asked you about this and you said it was set manually"
W: *waffles*
Mellor: "I'm afraid I simply don't understand what you are claiming, if you want me to understand you need to clarify [why you are setting it manually instead of system default set]

W: *moar waffle about summertime*
Mellor: "I don't understand why Satoshi would worry about summertime or not"
W: "I was working with US and Caribbean companies at the time, so when I was doing documents I used standard for South American or Caribbean times and they need adjustin

Mellor: "But why are you adjusting to the time you are"
W: "Because it is negative 7 and the pdf contains reference to summertime etc."
G: "Well the last time I looked the Caribbean has a 5 hour difference"

G: "The pdf you provided cannot have been the one Satoshi published. Because the ones you provided were the ones you compiled in November 2023 and you did not put this command in [date change] until December 2023"
W: "No that's not true"

G: "It is a matter of record that there was no date until you set it with that command for [the date you wanted]
W: "Yes but I did it at my house *waffle*
G: "We can take that up in closing but you are lying"

G: "You say the original Bitcoin WP [in latex] is not available in the public domain and that this lack of files being available shows that [because you have them] it serves to prove that you are Satoshi"
W: "No it is part of all the evidence"
G: "Because it's such delicate work"

G: "You say that the images allow for searches on the text and that this proves they are not copied in [from the original WP]. If we look at image 4 the bottom left merkle tree diagram has text 'hash zero 1' overflowing the bounding box, that's obviously an error, any comments?"

W: "No"
G: "Ok so next we have this where the original Bitcoin WP has no error overflowing the bounding box and YOUR version has error in the text code."
W: "Yes I typed in hash01 instead of hash0"
G: "Has a hash of transaction 0? [that makes no sense]
W: *waffle*
G: "oh dear"

G: "You know how merkle trees work yes?"
W: "Oh course I do"
G: *describes how it works*
W: "Well I have a mistake in my diagram, yes"
G: "But the hash [term makes no sense]"

W: "I know you want to make out that I know nothing about this but we have BSV doing a millions txs per second which is faster than what Oracle can do, and this is what these guys want to stop"
Mellor: "Can we get back to the topic"

G: "A first year student would know that the merkle tree is not a[binary something]"
W: "No Mikkeljon is wrong!"
G: "I didn't want to have to explain what a merkle tree is but here we go *explains the basic principle of the first hash"
W: "Yes and then it makes a binary structure

G: "Let's go to here where it described Merkles original tree"
W: "MERKLES ORIGINAL TREE IS SOMETHING ELSE IT IS DIFFERENT IN BITCOIN"
G: "We can see the public files *each one hashing from the previous"
W: "TO DO WITH SIGNATURES!"

G: "Can we get to this.."
W: "MY LORD CAN WE GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS PAGE!!!!"
Mellor: "Please just answer to the question"
G: "You have a hash of a combination of y1 and y2 and a hash of a [combination of next ones]"
W: "IN THIS STRUCTURE YES BUT BITCOIN IS DIFFERENT"

G: "We can see the the next hash in the row is derived [from the previous]"
W: *WAFFLES LOUDLY*
G: "Please if we can show the judge what the actual process is"
W: *WAFFLES EVEN LOUDER*

G: *describes the merkle tree process*
W: "It is a respresentation of the process"
G: "But the clever things is that because of the hash from the root I don't need to show all of the hashes, just the hash of [these]"
W: *furiously drinking water all throughout this grilling*

G: "The block header includes the merkle root and this allows you to tell that you tx is in the block structure"
W: "No that's part of SPV where you can use the path structure..."
G: "But the method we are describing is not a binary search tree, is it?"
W: "No there are different

W: "[types of binary search tree structures]. The structure in Bitcoin SPV allows you to just have the path and you can prove it has the header and I transmit it to you and it allows users to not have to run full nodes"
G: "The problem is that it is the opposite..."

G: "A merkly tree is not a search tree"
W: "Well the way the data structure initiated back in 2008 *waffles about hashes being ordered in block* so when I say Binary Search Tree I'm talking about *turns to judge talk about 0 and 1 searches"

W: *absolutely caning the water right now*
G: "So I showed you made this error on your version of the WP, when did you make this error?"
W: "Well I have 20-something copes of my last dissertation I only did my viva for this week, that means I don't have only a copy"

G: "You solicitors showed us the activity report downloaded from Overleaf. Stross and Shoosmiths came to your hours and downloaded something and Overlead sent you something. When that bitcoin folder project history was first presented to us you inadvertendly included an adjacent

G: "maths.old project. Which you have never referred to in your witness statmenent."
W: *drowning himself in water now*
G: "This letter from Shoosmiths say that their client inadvertently included the maths.old file in the evidence send to us"

W: "No that's not he downloaded file"
G: "Shoosmiths stated 'our client inadvertently included the maths.old project into the evidence that was sent'"
W: "No I had no interaction with that process"
G: "If we had not received it we would never have known about all the changes"

G: "So where it say you inadvertently included it the implication is that you would have withheld it from us otherwise"
W: "No not at all"
G: "Here it says 'there is a further project maths.old where it is possible to see all the activity [on Overlead CSW did - an audit trail]"

G: "It says that it can be reasonably inferred that all of the changed to the bitcoin WP were copied in from the maths.old"
W: "No that's not true I was *waffle about demonstration*"
G: "The bitcoin file was created from the maths.old file"

G: "Dr Wright it is not similar it is IDENTICAL to the final file you produced"
W: "No I did some demonstrations and then I download the original one *waffle waffe*"
G: "CSW it is clear you copied the content of this new bitcoin file you submitted from the maths.old project"

W: "No that's not correct you see *waffle about excuses* IT SAYS VERY CLEARLY THEY ARE IMPORTED FROM OVERLEAF FROM MY COMPUTER"
G: "It is interesting you are continuing to resist this inferring because you have sent Mr Orr to make a statement to support your claims haven't you?"

W: "No I have not"
G: "Here you describe how you upgraded from a free to a paid accounty. You talk about storing the files but you make no mention about doing extensive edits to them"
W: "No that's not true when I first downloaded the files I was doing demonstrations to shoosmith

G: "I have shown you that you did not mention ANY of the changes we showed on the animation [built from the Overlead audit trail]"
W: "no you see because *waffle*"
G: "My Hough took you to the statement you made and you responded saying 'I demonstrated to shoosmiths and made...

G: "...small edits. A few minor changes here and there"
W: "Yes I did it for my demonstration"
G: "You clearly haven't studied the chunks files which [shows ALL the extensive edits CSW made]. It was only last week that your solicitors gave us the unredacted version"

W: "I wasn't allowed to talk to my solicitors but yes"
G: "We can see that NONE of the changes you made to the bitcoin latex file were done during any demonstration you did to Shoosmiths"
W: "No I didn't do everything while they were there, I did [more changes later to show]"

G: "No the ONLY changes you showed Shoosmiths was those4 minor ones we marked in red on the animation"
W: "No this process took hours [describes how he had to painstakingly explain the 4 minor changes he showed Shoosmiths"
G: "They say our instructions are CSW did edit the code"

G: "That CSW did all the changes and then sought to undo the changes to be able to compile the file into the version he submitted [to the case]"
W: "No you are confusing the changes I made to the maths.old file as part of my demonstration. As you showed the maths.old was loaded..

W: "..from the other projects"
G: "The folders you deleted weren't they"
W: "No it is because *waffle*
G: "No again we are going on a doom loop of lying"
W: No you are just not understanding how I express myself

G: "You used this method using aspos tool to create the changes you needed didn't you?"
W: "No that's not true"
G: "this blob file existed in the maths.old project and copies the same process. This is an aspos output, right?"
W: "Yes"

W: "This was just part of a demonstration"
G: "The test using aspos would not be a good tool to create a forgery would it, the letters [would be all over the place]. as we can see the letter are placed with nanometer accuracy. That is an insane level of accuracy, ridiculous"

W: "Yes that would be ridiculous"
G: "So it screams forgery"
W: "Well not necessarily"
G: "So this image has been identified to an accuracey of a fraction of a millimeter"
W: "I'm not sure of the [metric in latex]"

G: "So aspos seems to be producing an extremely high level of accurately."
W: "Yes seems to be"
G: "But it doesn't do colours well"
W: "well it does show black"

G: "We can see how you could easily do copy and place on that line width. Do you see this text 'block' we can see it represents as an aspos output we can see the letters 'lock' have been given an unusual [placement] and font, you could just do find and replace"
W: "you could"

G: "That's what you did isn't it?"
W: "No"
G: "Here the word 'item' has the same thing aspos output to FOUR decimal places for 'tem' so that is less than a thousand of the width of a human hair for accuracy and no person composing a latex document could do that from scratch"

W: "Well maybe if you were using a tablet, but no generally that more than what most people could do"
G: "This is the text file for image two from your latex WP file. Do you see it has EXACTLY the same coordinates to your aspos document"
W: "In these sections it does yes"

W: "It's because it's a digital file"
G: "It's because you used aspos to forge [your bitcoin wp]"
W: "No because that was slightly different to mine"
G: "No because if you had placed each letter individually it would have screamed out you'd make a forgery"

G: "Here you forgot to change the word 'item' from its aspos coding. EVERY letter of this word is exactly the same as your aspos output"
W: "Where is this file taken from"
G: "It's yours, it's on all of them. The accuracy is at the levels of the size of DNA"

W: "No I had people on my computer I said that"
G: "It is ABSURD to propose that using a graphic tablet that you can [create from scratch] the same level of accuracy [between the aspos and the bitcoin wp he presented] by using a tablet"
W: "Mr Ager-Hansen already demonstrated..."

W: "...he had access to my computer"
G: "NO! That is just not credible, EVERY LINE EVERY PLACEMENT is EXACTLY the same as your aspos output. It is simply not credible [that it could have been done from scratch]"

G: "you go on to say how incredibly difficult it would be to [forge the latex version] *goes on to put CSW's words back to him* So what you were doing there was bigging up the fact you had created the very text file YOU had manipulated"

W: *rants about @agerhanssen*
G: "That is simply not true, any fool could have created this using the tools you described"
W: "No because [when I created this file] I used a graphics tablet"
G: *read back CSW's words extolling just how impossible it would be to forge the latex wp

@agerhanssen G: "unfortunately for you the evidence shows how you created this file doesn't it?"
W: "No it does not"
G: "Unfortunately for you apsos was not capable of [explains element] which you had to manually set yourself didn't you?"
W: *talks of Ager Hansen and Zafar*

@agerhanssen G: "Every part of your submission is a lie isn't it?"
W: "Not from me, there are people who have joined the BTC side after having been fired from nChain"
G: "The animation I showed you showed your forgery being created"
W: "No you are overlooking that any edit wasn't done in my..

@agerhanssen W: "...version of overlead. It was uploaded by my afterwords *talks of conspiracy where someon else has made these changes*
G: "You thought you could withhold information about these files thinking [you could get away with it] Unforuntely for you Overlead kept a record of every

@agerhanssen G: "..keystroke showing [you forging the file]
W: "No I have a lot of people who are working against me"
G: "Your application to adjourn the trial was a FRAUD on the court wasn't it?"
W: "No I did not want an adjourmentment"

@agerhanssen G: "Dr Wright the Bitcoin whitepaper was not even written in LaTeX as the REAL Satoshi Nakamoto would know. You are a fraud aren't you"
W: "No I don't even need to be Satoshi I have created a system now which does millions of transactions a second, even more than Oracle that.."

@agerhanssen W: "...is running now and we have governments involved and none of them care if I am Satoshi or not *continues rant a while longer then stops surely victorious in his furious pitch about his altcoin!"

The judge must recognise his genius right now and declare him Satoshi. no?

@agerhanssen G: "No further questions"
M: "I have no question. I'll see you all at 10:30 on Monday"

And that is that for @dr_cswright, another humiliating smackdown with nothing more he can add.

⚡️tips to [e-mail] - I've now got to work the weekend to catch up on my stuff!😁