February 23, 2024
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright "The Satoshi Trial" Master Thread.
Friday, DAY 15
PLEASE RETWEET FOR MAX CIRCULATION.
This thread will contain advertisements from sponsors and partners.
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
3
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright "The Satoshi Trial" Master Thread.
Friday, DAY 15
PLEASE RETWEET FOR MAX CIRCULATION.
This thread will contain advertisements from sponsors and partners.
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
3
Apparently before the stream started, there was some discussion and CSW swearing that Paul Le Roux was not Satoshi Nakamoto. Can't yet confirm...
CRAIG SWEAR IN ON A BIBLE. BLACK SUIT, WHITE SHIRT. RED TIE.
Hough: This isn't a chance for you to supplement.
CSW: Don't need to
COPA: This will be on Madden findings on LaTex
CSW: Yep
[Big attitude out of both guys right out the gate...]
COPA: Your witness statement?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Madden and others say this was fake?
CSW: A lack of MYOB and suppositions. They could have run up MYOB and tested their suppositions. They chose not to
COPA: Let's try the answering the question trick. These were backdated. Are you aware?
CSW: I understand what they wrote and that their methodology included no training in MYOB and that they looked at a blog.
COPA: Are you aware they found a file from you to Shadders in MYOB format? And he generated a security audit showing transactions added in March 2020?
CSW: Yep. He took a legally privileged action and treated it wrong.
COPA: Here, Madden produced this from the zip.
CSW: The file that had nothing to do with the MYOB, yes.
COPA: Answer the questin trick, again.
CSW: Just did.
COPA: This includes, doesn't it, a tx between WII and Info Defense for $700[missed the number] yes?
CSW: The date I made a copy
COPA: It shows the date of the tx
CSW: Of the copy.
COPA: Your story was the screenshots were taken by Ontier using live MYOB
CSW: MYOB was give to Alex Partners in 2019
COPA: Transcrpt says it was Ontier in live login.
CSW: It was provided to them, and then they did whatever they did.
COPA: You told the court they got MYOB details in late 2019
CSW: And I have emails for that.
Grab: If those goes into privilege, I'm going to object. This hasn't been waived. I accept the answers he gives are binding. I don't accept they should be pursued further.
[Lot's of laser eye anons visible filling the COPA side. Jon Biers visible picking his nose over Hough's left shoulder.]
COPA: [Reading transcript] You gave that answer on timing, yes?
CSW: I did
COPA: You entered the txs into MYBO on 6 March 2020 and that had nothing to do with the screenshots even though they show the same entries?
CSW: They are slightly different.
COPA: We dispute that. Are you aware Ontier says they were provided details on 9 March, 2020.
CSW: I recall what Oliver said
COPA: They informed us they produced the screenshots including the one we saw earlier.
CSW: All I know is what I was told by my solicitors.
COPA: Is it wrong to say Ontier captured the screen shots before this date in March?
CSW: Yes
COPA: That's a lie
CSW: Not from me.
COPA: they have no reason to lie
CSW: LOL that's totally incorrect.
COPA: Why would they lie?
GRAB: I object to that. The docs speak for themselves.
Mellor: Move on, Mr Hough
COPA: It was no coincidence that Ontier captured the screenshots and did that 3 days after you made entries
CSW: they had already been submitted to the US Court.
COPA: They were added by you as an act of forgery
CSW: Seeing as they had already been given to the US Court, that's hard to believe.
COPA: Can't back it up
CSW: I sure can.
COPA: After these were discredited, you gave Placks access to another bit
CSW: Yep
COPA: Who gave access to this person?
CSW: My wife most likely.
COPA: Did you know she was giving access
CSW: I wasn't involved.
COPA: Did you know?
CSW: I wasn't involved.
Mellor: Answer the question
CSW: I can speculate, but not from knowledge.
COPA: So what happened?
CSW: He didn't use the live database.
COPA: You're aware clocks were set back?
CSW: they don't understand the software. I have given MYOB's docs because we couldn't use the product without updates.
COPA: These session logs. He found a login and logout event separated by 12 years.
CSW: He found updates on the database.
COPA: He found login and logout entry related to the same user ID separated by 12 years.
CSW: they have nothing to do how MYOB works and contrary to what the company stated.
COPA: You're just disagreeing with everything.
CSW: Everything wrong.
COPA: He performed an audit. That contain the same info as in the security session audit.
CSW: I see that
COPA: He says it was an export of the raw data.
CSW: I see what he's saying wrong.
COPA: He found a series of dates out of order. 2023 dates among 2010. It shows them in the order they were recorded.
CSW: It doesn't. this is related to changes in the schema. Over the years, MYOB changed and moved into "live" which didn't exist until 2017-18, so all of this references schema updates by the company. If you look at their webpage, it explains this
COPA: It is quite simply false that, as a result of updating, that it will put things out of order.
CSW: No. As they explain, this happens.
COPA: this accounting software produces misleading extracts?
CSW: No. Rather than using MYOB Live, they used an extract.
COPA: It is simply false that this accounting software can't be properly audited.
CSW: the live server has a separate log from the extracts. THEY say that the live version is the valid version, and that extracts of old files can cause this behavior.
COPA: they should be in regular time order if it was used properly.
CSW: No, the properly working software wasn't used. Each of your people decided not to use the actual database.
COPA: That's a pack of lies.
CRAIG SWEAR IN ON A BIBLE. BLACK SUIT, WHITE SHIRT. RED TIE.
Hough: This isn't a chance for you to supplement.
CSW: Don't need to
COPA: This will be on Madden findings on LaTex
CSW: Yep
[Big attitude out of both guys right out the gate...]
COPA: Your witness statement?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Madden and others say this was fake?
CSW: A lack of MYOB and suppositions. They could have run up MYOB and tested their suppositions. They chose not to
COPA: Let's try the answering the question trick. These were backdated. Are you aware?
CSW: I understand what they wrote and that their methodology included no training in MYOB and that they looked at a blog.
COPA: Are you aware they found a file from you to Shadders in MYOB format? And he generated a security audit showing transactions added in March 2020?
CSW: Yep. He took a legally privileged action and treated it wrong.
COPA: Here, Madden produced this from the zip.
CSW: The file that had nothing to do with the MYOB, yes.
COPA: Answer the questin trick, again.
CSW: Just did.
COPA: This includes, doesn't it, a tx between WII and Info Defense for $700[missed the number] yes?
CSW: The date I made a copy
COPA: It shows the date of the tx
CSW: Of the copy.
COPA: Your story was the screenshots were taken by Ontier using live MYOB
CSW: MYOB was give to Alex Partners in 2019
COPA: Transcrpt says it was Ontier in live login.
CSW: It was provided to them, and then they did whatever they did.
COPA: You told the court they got MYOB details in late 2019
CSW: And I have emails for that.
Grab: If those goes into privilege, I'm going to object. This hasn't been waived. I accept the answers he gives are binding. I don't accept they should be pursued further.
[Lot's of laser eye anons visible filling the COPA side. Jon Biers visible picking his nose over Hough's left shoulder.]
COPA: [Reading transcript] You gave that answer on timing, yes?
CSW: I did
COPA: You entered the txs into MYBO on 6 March 2020 and that had nothing to do with the screenshots even though they show the same entries?
CSW: They are slightly different.
COPA: We dispute that. Are you aware Ontier says they were provided details on 9 March, 2020.
CSW: I recall what Oliver said
COPA: They informed us they produced the screenshots including the one we saw earlier.
CSW: All I know is what I was told by my solicitors.
COPA: Is it wrong to say Ontier captured the screen shots before this date in March?
CSW: Yes
COPA: That's a lie
CSW: Not from me.
COPA: they have no reason to lie
CSW: LOL that's totally incorrect.
COPA: Why would they lie?
GRAB: I object to that. The docs speak for themselves.
Mellor: Move on, Mr Hough
COPA: It was no coincidence that Ontier captured the screenshots and did that 3 days after you made entries
CSW: they had already been submitted to the US Court.
COPA: They were added by you as an act of forgery
CSW: Seeing as they had already been given to the US Court, that's hard to believe.
COPA: Can't back it up
CSW: I sure can.
COPA: After these were discredited, you gave Placks access to another bit
CSW: Yep
COPA: Who gave access to this person?
CSW: My wife most likely.
COPA: Did you know she was giving access
CSW: I wasn't involved.
COPA: Did you know?
CSW: I wasn't involved.
Mellor: Answer the question
CSW: I can speculate, but not from knowledge.
COPA: So what happened?
CSW: He didn't use the live database.
COPA: You're aware clocks were set back?
CSW: they don't understand the software. I have given MYOB's docs because we couldn't use the product without updates.
COPA: These session logs. He found a login and logout event separated by 12 years.
CSW: He found updates on the database.
COPA: He found login and logout entry related to the same user ID separated by 12 years.
CSW: they have nothing to do how MYOB works and contrary to what the company stated.
COPA: You're just disagreeing with everything.
CSW: Everything wrong.
COPA: He performed an audit. That contain the same info as in the security session audit.
CSW: I see that
COPA: He says it was an export of the raw data.
CSW: I see what he's saying wrong.
COPA: He found a series of dates out of order. 2023 dates among 2010. It shows them in the order they were recorded.
CSW: It doesn't. this is related to changes in the schema. Over the years, MYOB changed and moved into "live" which didn't exist until 2017-18, so all of this references schema updates by the company. If you look at their webpage, it explains this
COPA: It is quite simply false that, as a result of updating, that it will put things out of order.
CSW: No. As they explain, this happens.
COPA: this accounting software produces misleading extracts?
CSW: No. Rather than using MYOB Live, they used an extract.
COPA: It is simply false that this accounting software can't be properly audited.
CSW: the live server has a separate log from the extracts. THEY say that the live version is the valid version, and that extracts of old files can cause this behavior.
COPA: they should be in regular time order if it was used properly.
CSW: No, the properly working software wasn't used. Each of your people decided not to use the actual database.
COPA: That's a pack of lies.
COPA: You recall the experiment report?
CSW: I see what he called an experiment report.
COPA: You see the first recorded login to the file with ver 2023....
CSW: If he did a real experiment, it would look like
COPA: Your experiments aren't admissible.
CSW: Maybe someone should have done them.
COPA: Ignoring your digressions and here say, and focusing on the evidence, this version is from May 2023.
CSW: I don't know. That's when a schema update occurred.
COPA: Do you accept this date?
CSW: For a schema update.
COPA: He said there's a March 15 update.
CSW: Yes
COPA: You say that in December 2012, there was a transition from business edition to subscription online version.
CSW: Yes
COPA: You said updates could change the file
CSW: YEs
COPA: Alex partners said there would be updates later.
CSW: The whole time.
COPA: When your wife engaged them in 2023, there would have been an update.
CSW: If you don't click accept, it doesn't change
COPA: That accounts for Madden's extract having a 2023 version.
CSW: Not exactly, but kind of... If software doesn't update, it wouldn't work at all.
COPA: He downloaded all available versions to check.
CSW: False. He could use versions back to 1997
COPA: Do you dispute he used these versions?
CSW: These are patch schema versions. He's even incorrect here.
COPA: Stick to the evidence
CSW: lol what evidence?
COPA: You're not submitting evidence to the court. These didn't update earlier records. They show which version of the software made updates. Are you calling him a liar?
CSW: I'm saying he didn't do an experiment. To have the schemas used properly, he could have used the earlier files and looked at them, replicated, etc... But he didn't. Why wasn't there any check to see how it behave when properly handled?
COPA: It was made with the later version!
CSW: No. He did it offline, didn't upload it MYOB Live, and I have emphasized the whole time that we use Live and it uploads to AWS.
COPA: It would be a serious flaw if new software updated old records.
CSW: You're talking about the local version, which everyone knows you can't trust. You HAVE TO check the secure Live version to rely.
COPA: This is accounting software. It has to be auditable.
CSW: Your local copy, categorically, cannot be trusted. MYOB states this.
COPA: It doesn't say Madden's process will do this.
CSW: If you go to the live version, which Madden avoided, it would work.
COPA: These are lies.
CSW: Maybe from the other side. I gave the login, and nobody used the login to do it right.
CSW: I see what he called an experiment report.
COPA: You see the first recorded login to the file with ver 2023....
CSW: If he did a real experiment, it would look like
COPA: Your experiments aren't admissible.
CSW: Maybe someone should have done them.
COPA: Ignoring your digressions and here say, and focusing on the evidence, this version is from May 2023.
CSW: I don't know. That's when a schema update occurred.
COPA: Do you accept this date?
CSW: For a schema update.
COPA: He said there's a March 15 update.
CSW: Yes
COPA: You say that in December 2012, there was a transition from business edition to subscription online version.
CSW: Yes
COPA: You said updates could change the file
CSW: YEs
COPA: Alex partners said there would be updates later.
CSW: The whole time.
COPA: When your wife engaged them in 2023, there would have been an update.
CSW: If you don't click accept, it doesn't change
COPA: That accounts for Madden's extract having a 2023 version.
CSW: Not exactly, but kind of... If software doesn't update, it wouldn't work at all.
COPA: He downloaded all available versions to check.
CSW: False. He could use versions back to 1997
COPA: Do you dispute he used these versions?
CSW: These are patch schema versions. He's even incorrect here.
COPA: Stick to the evidence
CSW: lol what evidence?
COPA: You're not submitting evidence to the court. These didn't update earlier records. They show which version of the software made updates. Are you calling him a liar?
CSW: I'm saying he didn't do an experiment. To have the schemas used properly, he could have used the earlier files and looked at them, replicated, etc... But he didn't. Why wasn't there any check to see how it behave when properly handled?
COPA: It was made with the later version!
CSW: No. He did it offline, didn't upload it MYOB Live, and I have emphasized the whole time that we use Live and it uploads to AWS.
COPA: It would be a serious flaw if new software updated old records.
CSW: You're talking about the local version, which everyone knows you can't trust. You HAVE TO check the secure Live version to rely.
COPA: This is accounting software. It has to be auditable.
CSW: Your local copy, categorically, cannot be trusted. MYOB states this.
COPA: It doesn't say Madden's process will do this.
CSW: If you go to the live version, which Madden avoided, it would work.
COPA: These are lies.
CSW: Maybe from the other side. I gave the login, and nobody used the login to do it right.
COPA: There's a schema version and a product version.
CSW: And they have to match the record!
COPA: These are used for audit.
CSW: He didn't check the SQL database online. These are mapped from a table that wasn't sync'd back online.
COPA: All updates don't have this effect. Only some?
CSW: If the record is updated without using the right version and then not checked against the live version, of course the record would be untrustworthy. the statement from the company is that the live record is secure.
COPA: We agree the files were in ther MYOX format. First introduced in April 2016
CSW: Yes, as stated
COPA: MYO before?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Madden indicates the software in the MYO format didn't format a session ID in the logs. You dispute?
CSW: Of course. I have records back to 1997. When you load MYO files into the live version. It adds the session IDs of the user. You can no longer download the MYO once it's been on live. Only MYOX. I keep saying this.
COPA: No, it just brings across the info from the MYO file.
CSW: Utterly wrong. You REFUSE to do the actual experiment.
COPA: This system does not create session ID references and apply retrospecitvely.
CSW: Yes, LIVE DOES. You can't upload it until Live and not fill this in.
COPA: There are 3 independent reasons why these are forged. Wrong versions, backdating...
CSW: the website explains this.
COPA: I'm disputing.
CSW: the live session has the data.
COPA: Third is that the file type wasn't used in 2009.
CSW: When loaded into live, you have to do the update to MYOX. You can't keep using MYO. You don't have a choice.
COPA: I put to you that this is false as the experts found.
CSW: Both of them refuse to check the environment despite me writing pages on how to do it.
COPA: So only you can do this?
CSW: We had a chartered accountant and MYOB verify this. I pulled this information from them and gave them.
CSW: And they have to match the record!
COPA: These are used for audit.
CSW: He didn't check the SQL database online. These are mapped from a table that wasn't sync'd back online.
COPA: All updates don't have this effect. Only some?
CSW: If the record is updated without using the right version and then not checked against the live version, of course the record would be untrustworthy. the statement from the company is that the live record is secure.
COPA: We agree the files were in ther MYOX format. First introduced in April 2016
CSW: Yes, as stated
COPA: MYO before?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Madden indicates the software in the MYO format didn't format a session ID in the logs. You dispute?
CSW: Of course. I have records back to 1997. When you load MYO files into the live version. It adds the session IDs of the user. You can no longer download the MYO once it's been on live. Only MYOX. I keep saying this.
COPA: No, it just brings across the info from the MYO file.
CSW: Utterly wrong. You REFUSE to do the actual experiment.
COPA: This system does not create session ID references and apply retrospecitvely.
CSW: Yes, LIVE DOES. You can't upload it until Live and not fill this in.
COPA: There are 3 independent reasons why these are forged. Wrong versions, backdating...
CSW: the website explains this.
COPA: I'm disputing.
CSW: the live session has the data.
COPA: Third is that the file type wasn't used in 2009.
CSW: When loaded into live, you have to do the update to MYOX. You can't keep using MYO. You don't have a choice.
COPA: I put to you that this is false as the experts found.
CSW: Both of them refuse to check the environment despite me writing pages on how to do it.
COPA: So only you can do this?
CSW: We had a chartered accountant and MYOB verify this. I pulled this information from them and gave them.
COPA: Now, papaneema@gmail.com. You used him and Denis Mayaka for corporate formation services?
CSW: Not on that date...
COPA: He arranged your acquisition of companies, but we disagree on the dates?
CSW: Not acquired. Formed.
COPA: Disagree
COPA: You says he lives now in Nairobi Kenya
CSW: He does
COPA: You got 2 emails from him in September which are genuine?
CSW: They are
COPA: These were invoices sent to show Wright Intl and Tulip Trading in the 2011 period, correct?
CSW: YEs
COPA: See the files here.
CSW: I don't see the attachments.
COPA: You see the file names?
CSW: Yes
COPA: These are invoices from Abacus, a timecoin paper and a single doc. Another version of timecoin paper. Correct?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Why does it have a Tulip Trading signature block at the bottom?
CSW: Because I replied. Follow down here. Tulip Trading is my response. from craig at RCJBR.
COPA: RCJBR has a Tulip signatures?
CSW: They are all the same address. 3 emails for the one box?
COPA: Since when did RCJBR have a Tulip Signature.
CSW: A long time. RCJBR .com, .org and TUlip are all one box but different aliases.
COPA: Depending on the computer, sig would be different?
CSW: Yes, depending on the client, it would be signed on the machine.
COPA: Another one from papaneema to you, providing passwords. You claim to receive emails from Mayaka here?
CSW: And more. We communicate more than I submitted here.
COPA: Is this an email forwarding screenshots?
CSW:
COPA: You see it says "I'm always loyal, etc..."
CSW: I do
COPA: You say sig block would depend where you logged in?
CSW: yes
COPA: that's disputed.
CSW: You do signatures in the mail client.
COPA: You accept time offset is GMT+1?
CSW: Yes, Denis' clients are mostly English.
COPA: His system time is set to GMT?
CSW: Yes. His clientele is large British companies.
COPA: Consistent with someone in the UK?
CSW: Working with the UK. I set my clock to US time when I'm doing US work.
COPA: This looks like a doc from Info Defense April 2009.
CSW: IT is that
COPA: That's 6 months after the bitcoin white paper?
CW: Yes
COPA: It's an extended version of the white paper drafted in Open Office version...?
CSW: Not that version, but linked into LaTex
COPA: Version 3.0 which can still be downloaded.
CSW: And the MyTech and LaTex plugins.
COPA: So, it could be written and backdated?
CSW: And unicorns could rule the world with the illuminati.
Mellor: Is it technically possible?
CSW: Yes, in HEX, and adding in binary, but it's implausible.
Mellor: That's not the question. He's asking if it would be doable in the version here?
CSW: You can't get unpatched versions. I would have to have an old version on an old Windows version with old patches, etc... It's infeasable. Nobody can show it because they can't get the versioning right. You COULD find source code and rebuild unpatched versions and remove Windows patches. Technically possible, but it's as likely as guessing a provate key.
COPA: Madden found it would be as simple as downloading the public available software.
CSW: No. It's an unpatched version. It would be a month of work to do this.
TAKING FIVE MINUTES
CSW: Not on that date...
COPA: He arranged your acquisition of companies, but we disagree on the dates?
CSW: Not acquired. Formed.
COPA: Disagree
COPA: You says he lives now in Nairobi Kenya
CSW: He does
COPA: You got 2 emails from him in September which are genuine?
CSW: They are
COPA: These were invoices sent to show Wright Intl and Tulip Trading in the 2011 period, correct?
CSW: YEs
COPA: See the files here.
CSW: I don't see the attachments.
COPA: You see the file names?
CSW: Yes
COPA: These are invoices from Abacus, a timecoin paper and a single doc. Another version of timecoin paper. Correct?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Why does it have a Tulip Trading signature block at the bottom?
CSW: Because I replied. Follow down here. Tulip Trading is my response. from craig at RCJBR.
COPA: RCJBR has a Tulip signatures?
CSW: They are all the same address. 3 emails for the one box?
COPA: Since when did RCJBR have a Tulip Signature.
CSW: A long time. RCJBR .com, .org and TUlip are all one box but different aliases.
COPA: Depending on the computer, sig would be different?
CSW: Yes, depending on the client, it would be signed on the machine.
COPA: Another one from papaneema to you, providing passwords. You claim to receive emails from Mayaka here?
CSW: And more. We communicate more than I submitted here.
COPA: Is this an email forwarding screenshots?
CSW:
COPA: You see it says "I'm always loyal, etc..."
CSW: I do
COPA: You say sig block would depend where you logged in?
CSW: yes
COPA: that's disputed.
CSW: You do signatures in the mail client.
COPA: You accept time offset is GMT+1?
CSW: Yes, Denis' clients are mostly English.
COPA: His system time is set to GMT?
CSW: Yes. His clientele is large British companies.
COPA: Consistent with someone in the UK?
CSW: Working with the UK. I set my clock to US time when I'm doing US work.
COPA: This looks like a doc from Info Defense April 2009.
CSW: IT is that
COPA: That's 6 months after the bitcoin white paper?
CW: Yes
COPA: It's an extended version of the white paper drafted in Open Office version...?
CSW: Not that version, but linked into LaTex
COPA: Version 3.0 which can still be downloaded.
CSW: And the MyTech and LaTex plugins.
COPA: So, it could be written and backdated?
CSW: And unicorns could rule the world with the illuminati.
Mellor: Is it technically possible?
CSW: Yes, in HEX, and adding in binary, but it's implausible.
Mellor: That's not the question. He's asking if it would be doable in the version here?
CSW: You can't get unpatched versions. I would have to have an old version on an old Windows version with old patches, etc... It's infeasable. Nobody can show it because they can't get the versioning right. You COULD find source code and rebuild unpatched versions and remove Windows patches. Technically possible, but it's as likely as guessing a provate key.
COPA: Madden found it would be as simple as downloading the public available software.
CSW: No. It's an unpatched version. It would be a month of work to do this.
TAKING FIVE MINUTES
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
Tips appreciated @ $kurt on @handcashapp
WE ARE SO BACK!
COPA: Continuing... The images in the white paper file don't match expected.
CSW: I was experimenting at the time.
COPA: We dispute creation in LaTex. The pixelated versions in your doc appear to be screenshots. that's right, isn't it?
CSW: If they were screenshots, they wouldn't have this depth or darkness. I was experimenting with native output vs web versions.
COPA: So the later doc produced worse versions?
CSW: Yes, I was looking for versions that would work on the website.
COPA: That's wrong. It could be a screenshot
CSW: that's wrong. I have existing files in overleaf that let me create various image outputs at various resolutions, as you know. You're arguing that error-free files are forged and that files with server issues are forged. Damned if I do or dont...
COPA: There's different types of forgery on everything. What would you call them?
CSW: Words I shouldn't use in court. I could have exported at high resolution.
COPA: I'm not interested in better forgeries.
COPA: The files from Mayaka match the files found on the drive?
CSW: the drive had old information on it, I'm sure.
COPA: Timecoin paper wasn't in original disclosure.
CSW: Yes, it wasn't imaged
COPA: You found it on the drive and got it from Mayaka? The same mystery file?
CSW: It's probably on other drives too.
COPA: Let's focus on the coincidence.
CSW: I knew Denis would have it. I didn't know it was on the drive. I was just struggling to get to Denis for 3 years.
COPA: You wanted invoices from him and other files. He sends you the invoices and this one other file.
CSW: Yes
COPA: He sends you 4 invoices and an information defense doc.
CSW: Produced by the group.
COPA: Only 4 invoices and a paper.
CSW: It says Info Defense.
COPA: It doesn't refer to the Seychelles cos?
CSW: they all ran through the entity at the time.
COPA: It doesn't refer to those Seychelles cos?
CSW: It was a marketing doc
COPA: He wasn't involved with all these companies?
CSW: Yes and no. He helped me roll them all into the parent co. they all moved into the other thing.
COPA: So you get just these docs you needed? Just happens to be the same as you discovered on the Samsung drive?
CSW: I didn't discover it. I wasn't looking there.
COPA: Mayaka did it this way?
CSW: I'm 60% of his business right now. He does lots of work for me.
COPA: He didn't supply any records for the other companies you requested though?
CSW: He's working on them now
COPA: This is just beggars belief.
CSW: Not at all
COPA: Continuing... The images in the white paper file don't match expected.
CSW: I was experimenting at the time.
COPA: We dispute creation in LaTex. The pixelated versions in your doc appear to be screenshots. that's right, isn't it?
CSW: If they were screenshots, they wouldn't have this depth or darkness. I was experimenting with native output vs web versions.
COPA: So the later doc produced worse versions?
CSW: Yes, I was looking for versions that would work on the website.
COPA: That's wrong. It could be a screenshot
CSW: that's wrong. I have existing files in overleaf that let me create various image outputs at various resolutions, as you know. You're arguing that error-free files are forged and that files with server issues are forged. Damned if I do or dont...
COPA: There's different types of forgery on everything. What would you call them?
CSW: Words I shouldn't use in court. I could have exported at high resolution.
COPA: I'm not interested in better forgeries.
COPA: The files from Mayaka match the files found on the drive?
CSW: the drive had old information on it, I'm sure.
COPA: Timecoin paper wasn't in original disclosure.
CSW: Yes, it wasn't imaged
COPA: You found it on the drive and got it from Mayaka? The same mystery file?
CSW: It's probably on other drives too.
COPA: Let's focus on the coincidence.
CSW: I knew Denis would have it. I didn't know it was on the drive. I was just struggling to get to Denis for 3 years.
COPA: You wanted invoices from him and other files. He sends you the invoices and this one other file.
CSW: Yes
COPA: He sends you 4 invoices and an information defense doc.
CSW: Produced by the group.
COPA: Only 4 invoices and a paper.
CSW: It says Info Defense.
COPA: It doesn't refer to the Seychelles cos?
CSW: they all ran through the entity at the time.
COPA: It doesn't refer to those Seychelles cos?
CSW: It was a marketing doc
COPA: He wasn't involved with all these companies?
CSW: Yes and no. He helped me roll them all into the parent co. they all moved into the other thing.
COPA: So you get just these docs you needed? Just happens to be the same as you discovered on the Samsung drive?
CSW: I didn't discover it. I wasn't looking there.
COPA: Mayaka did it this way?
CSW: I'm 60% of his business right now. He does lots of work for me.
COPA: He didn't supply any records for the other companies you requested though?
CSW: He's working on them now
COPA: This is just beggars belief.
CSW: Not at all
COPA: Madden sees creation date 2017, modified in 2018 and 2023... Apart from those anomalies, are you aware that both experts found that 31 October appeared with clock backdating.
CSW: the way they put this is wrong. They failed to test that the date structure is exactly how Xcopy works. When you have a file from 2009, the created date and mods are anomolous.
COPA: they considered your words and found them wrong.
CSW: They are disagreeing with Microsoft. I demonstrated to them how to do it, and they refused.
COPA: Here's the paper. It says [XYZ... like bitcoin white paper language...] Is that a correct version?
CSW: One of them
COPA: Look at these two. a Timecoin paper from May 2008. It's a forgery. Is the abstract similar to the bitcoin White paper from March 2009.
CSW: Yes, I don't work in a linear fashion.
COPA: they include some different language
CSW: Some. One is time stamping system, the other can do file security with tripwire system.
COPA: On the file from 2008, [going on section numbers...] Same as the bitcoin white paper sections?
CSW: Yes, this one was for university work.
COPA: Or forgery...
CSW: [rolls eyes]
COPA: [continuing through sections] the content is broadly the same?
CSW: Yes
COPA: On the left, when you say you produced this in April 2009, bitcoin has been running for 3 months.
CSW: A little bit more.
COPA: On the left, the papaneema emailed file, it's Timecoin "a" P2P cash system, but the April paper doesn't use "a"
CSW: They're not the same doc.
COPA: It has the same title!
CSW: I produce lots of things like this. 25 papers with different versions. Timecoin and bitcoin are part of the same project.
COPA: The Timecoin paper has a longer intro
CSW: Yes. Just like I told Martti, one line of code makes it a security system.
COPA: [reading the Info Defense Timecoin intro] [points out spelling errors]
CSW: Yes
COPA: You gave this to clients with spelling errors?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Your additions to the doc are what contain the errors.
CSW: IDK
COPA: The bitcoin language doesn't. The timecoin language does.
CSW: That happens.
COPA: This contains critical elements of bitcoin.
CSW: It's an extension of the same system.
COPA: It's critical to your idea.
CSW: they're similarly critical because they're the same system.
COPA: This is just paraphrasing that adds nothing substantive.
CSW: Disagree.
COPA: What substantive difference is there?
CSW: they're the same system, but I don't think you want me to go word by word.
COPA: I think they're direct paraphrasing.
CSW: they're my documents on the same work.
COPA: So you accept that they're a paraphrase.
CSW: they're both versions of my work.
COPA: This one only says electronic payments.
CSW: Not correct. If you look, it discusses chronological order of txs which is logging and ordering.
COPA: It doesn't say anything about tripwire.
CSW: I'm not selling commercial tripwire, which is a product. But I'm talking about the chronological order to Martti and Druid about storing docs.
COPA: You refer to IT security features.
CSW: A P2P timestamps server of chronological order of things IS RIGHT THERE [shouting into mic] It's the chronological system. I don't say tripwire because I explain what tripwire is!
COPA: You don't say tripwire.
CSW: I explain it. It's the key function of any database of this sort.
COPA: IS this correct on tokens?
CSW: You'll notice I wasn't talking about digital value. I was talking incentives to operate.
COPA: Here's another paraphrase on data included in txs.
CSW: As I keep saying and as I said in 2009 to Martti. One line of code makes bitcoin a tripwire server.
COPA: You then add Forth-like language. That's mispelled too.
CSW: it is
COPA: Then you say another paraphrase here.
CSW: You have released the [satoshi] emails now showing what I was saying.
COPA: Then a waffle about eternal vigilance being the cost of liberty.
CSW: That's what I believe. The laser people pretend to be this, but it's my trademark from 2009 from Info Defense.
COPA: Section 4 of bitcoin is POW. No section in Timecoin about POW.
CSW: I don't remember. It wasn't an essential part of that doc.
COPA: Why not added?
CSW: As Adam incorrectly said about floating point, it is a...
COPA: Why wouldn't Timecoin describe it?
CSW: Bitcoin is a node document. Timecoin is a client document. SPV. The use of writing info to the blockchain.
COPA: Writing requires POW.
CSW: No. Back was wrong on that. POW isn't used in writing txs. The POW finds a valid hash. Then the txs are put into a binary tree structure. POW doesn't do any validating.
COPA: Writing requires POW to validate.
CSW: No, it validates that work was done, not that the txs were validated.
COPA: It's essential for writing the block to the chain. But this doc ignores it.
CSW: It doesn't need to know. Hearn uses a similar structure that doesn't use POW at Corda.
COPA: The abstract says POW though.
CSW: But it doesn't need to be there. this doc is for SPV only. You'll notice this is in my book in 2008. Bitcoin doesn't explain SPV deeply either because it's not the SPV document.
COPA: No. These are just paraphrases.
CSW: Nope.
COPA: Sections 5-6. In bitcoin, it explains the coinbase tx
CSW: Yes. It's a Quorum system, not a voting system for my software
COPA: It's not yours.
CSW: Yes it is
COPA: You call it "tradition." It was only 3 months old, weird to say it has traditions.
CSW: Nope.
COPA: You used ChatGPT and the wrong word.
CSW: It's not the wrong word, and you have my GPT history.
COPA: In Timecoin, you leave out SPV.
CSW: No
COPA: No, combining and splitting value is left out.
CSW: Because that wouldn't be part of that system.
COPA: You left it out?
CSW: It's in script.
COPA: It calls itself a cash system!
CSW: Based on cash. I explicitly said to Malmi, you just add a line and bitcoin becomes a security system for chronological file ordering, embed info, etc...
COPA: In privacy, you paraphrase the bitcoin white paper and take the image.
CSW: My image and my paper. Dr. Pang discussed this. It was an HMAC extension.
COPA: That's not what Pang gave.
CSW: I believe it is
COPA: this doc left out the calculations
CSW: Because those are for nodes. This is SPV
COPA: It's about outpacing a dishonest chain.
CSW: Dishonest chains can go on forever, but when you're talking about files, everything is in a single chain. You have no interest in double spending when you're chaining docs. You just need the chronological order of files.
CSW: the way they put this is wrong. They failed to test that the date structure is exactly how Xcopy works. When you have a file from 2009, the created date and mods are anomolous.
COPA: they considered your words and found them wrong.
CSW: They are disagreeing with Microsoft. I demonstrated to them how to do it, and they refused.
COPA: Here's the paper. It says [XYZ... like bitcoin white paper language...] Is that a correct version?
CSW: One of them
COPA: Look at these two. a Timecoin paper from May 2008. It's a forgery. Is the abstract similar to the bitcoin White paper from March 2009.
CSW: Yes, I don't work in a linear fashion.
COPA: they include some different language
CSW: Some. One is time stamping system, the other can do file security with tripwire system.
COPA: On the file from 2008, [going on section numbers...] Same as the bitcoin white paper sections?
CSW: Yes, this one was for university work.
COPA: Or forgery...
CSW: [rolls eyes]
COPA: [continuing through sections] the content is broadly the same?
CSW: Yes
COPA: On the left, when you say you produced this in April 2009, bitcoin has been running for 3 months.
CSW: A little bit more.
COPA: On the left, the papaneema emailed file, it's Timecoin "a" P2P cash system, but the April paper doesn't use "a"
CSW: They're not the same doc.
COPA: It has the same title!
CSW: I produce lots of things like this. 25 papers with different versions. Timecoin and bitcoin are part of the same project.
COPA: The Timecoin paper has a longer intro
CSW: Yes. Just like I told Martti, one line of code makes it a security system.
COPA: [reading the Info Defense Timecoin intro] [points out spelling errors]
CSW: Yes
COPA: You gave this to clients with spelling errors?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Your additions to the doc are what contain the errors.
CSW: IDK
COPA: The bitcoin language doesn't. The timecoin language does.
CSW: That happens.
COPA: This contains critical elements of bitcoin.
CSW: It's an extension of the same system.
COPA: It's critical to your idea.
CSW: they're similarly critical because they're the same system.
COPA: This is just paraphrasing that adds nothing substantive.
CSW: Disagree.
COPA: What substantive difference is there?
CSW: they're the same system, but I don't think you want me to go word by word.
COPA: I think they're direct paraphrasing.
CSW: they're my documents on the same work.
COPA: So you accept that they're a paraphrase.
CSW: they're both versions of my work.
COPA: This one only says electronic payments.
CSW: Not correct. If you look, it discusses chronological order of txs which is logging and ordering.
COPA: It doesn't say anything about tripwire.
CSW: I'm not selling commercial tripwire, which is a product. But I'm talking about the chronological order to Martti and Druid about storing docs.
COPA: You refer to IT security features.
CSW: A P2P timestamps server of chronological order of things IS RIGHT THERE [shouting into mic] It's the chronological system. I don't say tripwire because I explain what tripwire is!
COPA: You don't say tripwire.
CSW: I explain it. It's the key function of any database of this sort.
COPA: IS this correct on tokens?
CSW: You'll notice I wasn't talking about digital value. I was talking incentives to operate.
COPA: Here's another paraphrase on data included in txs.
CSW: As I keep saying and as I said in 2009 to Martti. One line of code makes bitcoin a tripwire server.
COPA: You then add Forth-like language. That's mispelled too.
CSW: it is
COPA: Then you say another paraphrase here.
CSW: You have released the [satoshi] emails now showing what I was saying.
COPA: Then a waffle about eternal vigilance being the cost of liberty.
CSW: That's what I believe. The laser people pretend to be this, but it's my trademark from 2009 from Info Defense.
COPA: Section 4 of bitcoin is POW. No section in Timecoin about POW.
CSW: I don't remember. It wasn't an essential part of that doc.
COPA: Why not added?
CSW: As Adam incorrectly said about floating point, it is a...
COPA: Why wouldn't Timecoin describe it?
CSW: Bitcoin is a node document. Timecoin is a client document. SPV. The use of writing info to the blockchain.
COPA: Writing requires POW.
CSW: No. Back was wrong on that. POW isn't used in writing txs. The POW finds a valid hash. Then the txs are put into a binary tree structure. POW doesn't do any validating.
COPA: Writing requires POW to validate.
CSW: No, it validates that work was done, not that the txs were validated.
COPA: It's essential for writing the block to the chain. But this doc ignores it.
CSW: It doesn't need to know. Hearn uses a similar structure that doesn't use POW at Corda.
COPA: The abstract says POW though.
CSW: But it doesn't need to be there. this doc is for SPV only. You'll notice this is in my book in 2008. Bitcoin doesn't explain SPV deeply either because it's not the SPV document.
COPA: No. These are just paraphrases.
CSW: Nope.
COPA: Sections 5-6. In bitcoin, it explains the coinbase tx
CSW: Yes. It's a Quorum system, not a voting system for my software
COPA: It's not yours.
CSW: Yes it is
COPA: You call it "tradition." It was only 3 months old, weird to say it has traditions.
CSW: Nope.
COPA: You used ChatGPT and the wrong word.
CSW: It's not the wrong word, and you have my GPT history.
COPA: In Timecoin, you leave out SPV.
CSW: No
COPA: No, combining and splitting value is left out.
CSW: Because that wouldn't be part of that system.
COPA: You left it out?
CSW: It's in script.
COPA: It calls itself a cash system!
CSW: Based on cash. I explicitly said to Malmi, you just add a line and bitcoin becomes a security system for chronological file ordering, embed info, etc...
COPA: In privacy, you paraphrase the bitcoin white paper and take the image.
CSW: My image and my paper. Dr. Pang discussed this. It was an HMAC extension.
COPA: That's not what Pang gave.
CSW: I believe it is
COPA: this doc left out the calculations
CSW: Because those are for nodes. This is SPV
COPA: It's about outpacing a dishonest chain.
CSW: Dishonest chains can go on forever, but when you're talking about files, everything is in a single chain. You have no interest in double spending when you're chaining docs. You just need the chronological order of files.
COPA: Explaining why the good chain should win is essential, and you left it out.
CSW: It's not essential for someone just generating hashes for chronology. That doesn't require POW, and if there's no attacker building your internal chain, it's irrelevant. The marketing document wouldn't explain all that.
COPA: It's right, isn't it, that the doc refers to hash based POW and that as long as majority of CPU is honest, it will work, but it's irrelevant to the rest of your paper?
CSW: If it's running on bitcoin, bitcoin explains it. But it could also be run without bitcoin like we did with Vodafone and Lasseters. Lasseters had 3 nodes and mine to sign everything. No POW necessary because all nodes were trusted. The gov had their own nodes for their system too. They trust their own nodes.
COPA: the timecoin paper is a clumsy mishmash of the real bitcoin white paper with some sections to link it to your forged backstory.
CSW: It's what is shown in my secret emails that have come out in this case.
COPA: I don't know what you're talking about. [Hough getting visibly emotional and shaky in the hands again]
Moving on
CSW: It's not essential for someone just generating hashes for chronology. That doesn't require POW, and if there's no attacker building your internal chain, it's irrelevant. The marketing document wouldn't explain all that.
COPA: It's right, isn't it, that the doc refers to hash based POW and that as long as majority of CPU is honest, it will work, but it's irrelevant to the rest of your paper?
CSW: If it's running on bitcoin, bitcoin explains it. But it could also be run without bitcoin like we did with Vodafone and Lasseters. Lasseters had 3 nodes and mine to sign everything. No POW necessary because all nodes were trusted. The gov had their own nodes for their system too. They trust their own nodes.
COPA: the timecoin paper is a clumsy mishmash of the real bitcoin white paper with some sections to link it to your forged backstory.
CSW: It's what is shown in my secret emails that have come out in this case.
COPA: I don't know what you're talking about. [Hough getting visibly emotional and shaky in the hands again]
Moving on
COPA: Back to papaneema email from Abacus. Invoice files, etc... These are timestamped as created on different dates over 2 years. Pretty surprising that each year he misspells invoice in each file.
CSW: He reused docs, I guess
COPA: Different templates but making the same error again and again?
CSW: He likely got a template update
COPA: Putting these two on screen. This says 2009 instead of 2011?
CSW: He must not have updated the date.
COPA: He didn't explain that?
CSW: He's a lawyer, and everyone keeps saying privilege.
COPA: The invoice numbers wouldn't make sense either, so date must be wrong?
CSW: Not necessariy. Despite the fact that you say he doesn't exist, Ontier has met him.
COPA: Madden says this doesn't match web archive here from this logo?
CSW: No, this is different quality and format than Wayback.
COPA: One email matches Waze Cyber... For all these reasons, papaneema emails appear to be forged.
CSW: no
COPA: Why not call Mayaka to testify?
CSW: They don't like solicitors on the stand.
COPA: What would the difficulty be?
Grab: I object.
COPA: Has Mr Mayake
Grab: Object immediately
COPA: Did he refuse?
Grab: It's irrelevant and raises the problem. He's about to ask about conversations with his lawyer.
COPA: Privilege is about legal advice. not whether he refused to be here.
Mellor: Just move on.
COPA: You claim these other docs were planted on you in Kleiman
CSW: No, not on me, but they were on a 3rd party machine that the US court demanded.
COPA: You claimed that the Abacus ones were?
CSW: I said everything on that machine was compromised. It was my emails illegally accessed.
COPA: And they forged invoices from Abacus. that's bizarre?
CSW: I think it was Ira sending to the ATO that it was me doing it. Then another said it was me sending to the ATO. I didn't do either thing.
COPA: This email exchange between you and Abacus was also claimed to be a forgery.
CSW: Yes. Not by me
COPA: Madden showed here that there's an entry for abacus DNS in 2010 and then a gap.
CSW: It's not hierarchical. When they don't get spider crawled... You have root domain, sub-domain... There can't be a gap. You can't have a gap. What you're saying here is not a gap. that's the SOA number changing.
COPA: the next record is 3 April 2015.
CSW: this is an SOA update
Mellor: There's a gap in the data in this table.
CSW: there isn't. DNS doesn't do time the way they are saying. The additions are additions to the site. There's no such thing as a gap in a WhoIs record. I wrote books on this topic. The reason WhoIs is used in prosecution - which I have testified on for prosecutors - is because they can't have gaps. the reason they aren't finding one is because it doesn't exist. When google sets you up, DNS issues will make it not work. This is all public knowledge. There can be a change in the underlying info, but not the domain.
COPA: It's right though, that on the basis of this record, Abacus could have moved to google without it being picked up.
CSW: No. Google would never allow that. They are the most rigorous and require that all DNS info is updated and checked properly.
COPA: The FAQ says "why do I see gaps?" Due to network problems or problems with DNS server. It says it aims to check once a month. Gaps may be due to network problems or failures by the provider.
CSW: No. Absolutely not. There can be dinky sites that don't propagate. Google checks everything.
CSW: He reused docs, I guess
COPA: Different templates but making the same error again and again?
CSW: He likely got a template update
COPA: Putting these two on screen. This says 2009 instead of 2011?
CSW: He must not have updated the date.
COPA: He didn't explain that?
CSW: He's a lawyer, and everyone keeps saying privilege.
COPA: The invoice numbers wouldn't make sense either, so date must be wrong?
CSW: Not necessariy. Despite the fact that you say he doesn't exist, Ontier has met him.
COPA: Madden says this doesn't match web archive here from this logo?
CSW: No, this is different quality and format than Wayback.
COPA: One email matches Waze Cyber... For all these reasons, papaneema emails appear to be forged.
CSW: no
COPA: Why not call Mayaka to testify?
CSW: They don't like solicitors on the stand.
COPA: What would the difficulty be?
Grab: I object.
COPA: Has Mr Mayake
Grab: Object immediately
COPA: Did he refuse?
Grab: It's irrelevant and raises the problem. He's about to ask about conversations with his lawyer.
COPA: Privilege is about legal advice. not whether he refused to be here.
Mellor: Just move on.
COPA: You claim these other docs were planted on you in Kleiman
CSW: No, not on me, but they were on a 3rd party machine that the US court demanded.
COPA: You claimed that the Abacus ones were?
CSW: I said everything on that machine was compromised. It was my emails illegally accessed.
COPA: And they forged invoices from Abacus. that's bizarre?
CSW: I think it was Ira sending to the ATO that it was me doing it. Then another said it was me sending to the ATO. I didn't do either thing.
COPA: This email exchange between you and Abacus was also claimed to be a forgery.
CSW: Yes. Not by me
COPA: Madden showed here that there's an entry for abacus DNS in 2010 and then a gap.
CSW: It's not hierarchical. When they don't get spider crawled... You have root domain, sub-domain... There can't be a gap. You can't have a gap. What you're saying here is not a gap. that's the SOA number changing.
COPA: the next record is 3 April 2015.
CSW: this is an SOA update
Mellor: There's a gap in the data in this table.
CSW: there isn't. DNS doesn't do time the way they are saying. The additions are additions to the site. There's no such thing as a gap in a WhoIs record. I wrote books on this topic. The reason WhoIs is used in prosecution - which I have testified on for prosecutors - is because they can't have gaps. the reason they aren't finding one is because it doesn't exist. When google sets you up, DNS issues will make it not work. This is all public knowledge. There can be a change in the underlying info, but not the domain.
COPA: It's right though, that on the basis of this record, Abacus could have moved to google without it being picked up.
CSW: No. Google would never allow that. They are the most rigorous and require that all DNS info is updated and checked properly.
COPA: The FAQ says "why do I see gaps?" Due to network problems or problems with DNS server. It says it aims to check once a month. Gaps may be due to network problems or failures by the provider.
CSW: No. Absolutely not. There can be dinky sites that don't propagate. Google checks everything.
COPA: Here's a DNS record and MX record.
CSW: More than that, but...
COPA: But it won't show the move?
CSW: It will if you moved to google.
COPA: Madden found that up to June 2014, registrar was...
CSW: I didn't look at name changes.
COPA: And change of DNS
CSW: Which is different than MX. We were looking at mail server searches. Madden as intentionally conflated two separate records.
COPA: You claimed a change to GoDaddy in 2015.
CSW: I have records going back to the 90's. Dan Kaminsky hates me because I am a DNS expert. I have written textbooks and worked for prosecution in US federal court on the topic. I am an expert on this.
COPA: Says GoDaddy was the registrar from 2014.
CSW: That's a registrar change. NOT DNS. You're confusing NS, MX and others. It's a magician trick.
COPA: They don't have to change.
CSW: And they didn't!
COPA: This would support a change in 2014.
CSW: No! You're confusing GoDaddy and Google. GD is the registrar and Goog is DNS. I think you're being rather disingenuous.
COPA: You brought up GoDaddy!
CSW: I brought up MX!
COPA: You refer to a DKIM test you claim to have performed.
CSW: this is a method on signing emails.
COPA: Digital sig on outgoing email, stops spoofing and prevents your email from being SPAM.
CSW: YEs, although it doesn't always work.
COPA: So, it shows the domain.
CSW: If it's right, but only about 30% are set up with proper DKIM.
COPA: Keys change periodically?
CSW: Of course. They have expiration.
COPA: So a ten year old test wouldn't work?
CSW: The tool has the domain info for the major providers. This tool has 20 years worth of google sigs stored.
COPA: Madden said it failed the test. Is he lying?
CSW: No, he's incompetent. Changing even one bit of info changes the hash. He got an error because it was downloaded wrong. It even shows the whole demark failed.
COPA: the real Satoshi would know this done right.
CSW: I am Satoshi. Being Satoshi doesn't make you an email forensics expert. I have written textbooks and prosecution textbooks on this topic. I can check emails back to 2010, and they work on that tool.
COPA: All my questions.
Gunning in one hour!
**Advertisement**
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
CSW: More than that, but...
COPA: But it won't show the move?
CSW: It will if you moved to google.
COPA: Madden found that up to June 2014, registrar was...
CSW: I didn't look at name changes.
COPA: And change of DNS
CSW: Which is different than MX. We were looking at mail server searches. Madden as intentionally conflated two separate records.
COPA: You claimed a change to GoDaddy in 2015.
CSW: I have records going back to the 90's. Dan Kaminsky hates me because I am a DNS expert. I have written textbooks and worked for prosecution in US federal court on the topic. I am an expert on this.
COPA: Says GoDaddy was the registrar from 2014.
CSW: That's a registrar change. NOT DNS. You're confusing NS, MX and others. It's a magician trick.
COPA: They don't have to change.
CSW: And they didn't!
COPA: This would support a change in 2014.
CSW: No! You're confusing GoDaddy and Google. GD is the registrar and Goog is DNS. I think you're being rather disingenuous.
COPA: You brought up GoDaddy!
CSW: I brought up MX!
COPA: You refer to a DKIM test you claim to have performed.
CSW: this is a method on signing emails.
COPA: Digital sig on outgoing email, stops spoofing and prevents your email from being SPAM.
CSW: YEs, although it doesn't always work.
COPA: So, it shows the domain.
CSW: If it's right, but only about 30% are set up with proper DKIM.
COPA: Keys change periodically?
CSW: Of course. They have expiration.
COPA: So a ten year old test wouldn't work?
CSW: The tool has the domain info for the major providers. This tool has 20 years worth of google sigs stored.
COPA: Madden said it failed the test. Is he lying?
CSW: No, he's incompetent. Changing even one bit of info changes the hash. He got an error because it was downloaded wrong. It even shows the whole demark failed.
COPA: the real Satoshi would know this done right.
CSW: I am Satoshi. Being Satoshi doesn't make you an email forensics expert. I have written textbooks and prosecution textbooks on this topic. I can check emails back to 2010, and they work on that tool.
COPA: All my questions.
Gunning in one hour!
**Advertisement**
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
Summary video for subscribers! You could be a subscriber too for only $2.99/month!
You'd get 2 videos per day during the trial and a ton of other value too.
You'd get 2 videos per day during the trial and a ton of other value too.
https://x.com/kurtwuckertjr/status/1761024062208331875?s=20
And we're back!
Greg's lawyer, Mr. Gunning representing "muh devs"
Stream didn't go on just on time. So bursting in mid-conversations.
Gunning: These would be the DNA of bitcoin?
CSW: They are just my papers.
Devs: The files were produced from LaTex. If you had the original, it would be very important?
CSW: It is a part. I've always stated that it's a sum of the whole of the evidence.
Devs: You would have understood the value of the documents?
CSW: They are the files from my on-going research.
Devs: You're a forensic examiner?
CSW: I was in the past
Devs: So you know why it would be valuable.
CSW: I wasn't thinking in 2007 I would be trying to prove I was Satoshi. I have written books about document retention, and only keep what needs kept.
Devs: Let's look at one of your publications. On doc management policy. Usually when things go wrong is when you need docs. Oral testimony without docs is weak, and missing docs is a problem.
CSW: Yes, which is why I am trying to build bitcoin. The system doesn't fully exist yet. In this doc, there's a table explaining the lifespan of docs. None would extend to the timeline of this case for retention.
Devs: I'm not interested in the last 7 years, but in the last 4 months. If a dispute arises, it's hazardous to destroy docs
CSW: Yep
Devs: Destruction of docs can adversely impact a case...
CSW: Yes, I said that.
Devs: And you hadn't forgotten this in 2023?
CSW: the docs weren't originals. You're looking at docs that were bought by companies 20X over in some cases and transferred. Even the 7 year policy wouldn't apply here.
Devs: You have an Overleaf acc with RJCB email from at least 2023, right?
CSW: Yes.
Devs: You said through Shoosmiths that you had a white paper file.
CSW: I don't know what they told you
Devs: They were held there?
CSW: No
Devs: Maths file was there in Nov 2023?
CSW: It passed through there. I did a demo around then.
Devs: Here's a JSON file. an operation occurred where you put it in ZZZ file.
CSW: I loaded the file. From the download folder, it was dragged into Overleaf.
Devs: We know then that you made a bunch of changes to the file.
CSW: I was demonstrating with it.
Devs: The Quickbook file was later in Dec.
CSW: It was the same file though.
Devs: Differences in the spaces of words?
CSW: I showed how changes would change files.
Devs: We know when because Shoosmiths showed us.
CSW: Yes, and I did multiple.
Devs: And coded for differences between words.
CSW: Yes
Devs: Could be used in LaTex to change word space?
CSW: Yes, that's what I was demo'ing.
Devs: And backslash semicolon?
CSW: Depending what the compiler is it'll come out thick space.
Devs: no it doesn't
CSW: fixed space?
Devs: THICK space.
CSW: Oh, yes
[Pieter Wuille smiling smugly at CSW]
Devs: We can see changes during these times.
CSW: Yes
Devs: You then worked for about 3 hours and posted a Slack post about watermarking. that's a pretty incredible coincidence that the last thing you do is slap in a comment about watermarking. that was you?
CSW: Not sure. I don't post. I ask for posts to be done.
Devs: Who was it? the tall guy?
CSW: [laughs]
Devs: We see you work for another 10 hours with a short break for lunch.
CSW: You are saying it will only add when I'm going back and forth. I set up a complete structure so my solicitors would understand.
Devs: This is a chart of changes to the bitcoin file not the cookbook.
CSW: To create the cookbook, I had to work side by side.
Devs: This is 22 hours of work on this file.
CSW: No. It's going back and forth on many things.
Devs: then the file called bitcoin. Then you copies the file into the other?
CSW: Something like that
Devs: Then other changes.
CSW: Yes, for my solicitors.
Devs: Then the changes you made included changes designed to make the text of LaTex look more like the bitcoin white paper.
CSW: I was showing how the differences work
Greg's lawyer, Mr. Gunning representing "muh devs"
Stream didn't go on just on time. So bursting in mid-conversations.
Gunning: These would be the DNA of bitcoin?
CSW: They are just my papers.
Devs: The files were produced from LaTex. If you had the original, it would be very important?
CSW: It is a part. I've always stated that it's a sum of the whole of the evidence.
Devs: You would have understood the value of the documents?
CSW: They are the files from my on-going research.
Devs: You're a forensic examiner?
CSW: I was in the past
Devs: So you know why it would be valuable.
CSW: I wasn't thinking in 2007 I would be trying to prove I was Satoshi. I have written books about document retention, and only keep what needs kept.
Devs: Let's look at one of your publications. On doc management policy. Usually when things go wrong is when you need docs. Oral testimony without docs is weak, and missing docs is a problem.
CSW: Yes, which is why I am trying to build bitcoin. The system doesn't fully exist yet. In this doc, there's a table explaining the lifespan of docs. None would extend to the timeline of this case for retention.
Devs: I'm not interested in the last 7 years, but in the last 4 months. If a dispute arises, it's hazardous to destroy docs
CSW: Yep
Devs: Destruction of docs can adversely impact a case...
CSW: Yes, I said that.
Devs: And you hadn't forgotten this in 2023?
CSW: the docs weren't originals. You're looking at docs that were bought by companies 20X over in some cases and transferred. Even the 7 year policy wouldn't apply here.
Devs: You have an Overleaf acc with RJCB email from at least 2023, right?
CSW: Yes.
Devs: You said through Shoosmiths that you had a white paper file.
CSW: I don't know what they told you
Devs: They were held there?
CSW: No
Devs: Maths file was there in Nov 2023?
CSW: It passed through there. I did a demo around then.
Devs: Here's a JSON file. an operation occurred where you put it in ZZZ file.
CSW: I loaded the file. From the download folder, it was dragged into Overleaf.
Devs: We know then that you made a bunch of changes to the file.
CSW: I was demonstrating with it.
Devs: The Quickbook file was later in Dec.
CSW: It was the same file though.
Devs: Differences in the spaces of words?
CSW: I showed how changes would change files.
Devs: We know when because Shoosmiths showed us.
CSW: Yes, and I did multiple.
Devs: And coded for differences between words.
CSW: Yes
Devs: Could be used in LaTex to change word space?
CSW: Yes, that's what I was demo'ing.
Devs: And backslash semicolon?
CSW: Depending what the compiler is it'll come out thick space.
Devs: no it doesn't
CSW: fixed space?
Devs: THICK space.
CSW: Oh, yes
[Pieter Wuille smiling smugly at CSW]
Devs: We can see changes during these times.
CSW: Yes
Devs: You then worked for about 3 hours and posted a Slack post about watermarking. that's a pretty incredible coincidence that the last thing you do is slap in a comment about watermarking. that was you?
CSW: Not sure. I don't post. I ask for posts to be done.
Devs: Who was it? the tall guy?
CSW: [laughs]
Devs: We see you work for another 10 hours with a short break for lunch.
CSW: You are saying it will only add when I'm going back and forth. I set up a complete structure so my solicitors would understand.
Devs: This is a chart of changes to the bitcoin file not the cookbook.
CSW: To create the cookbook, I had to work side by side.
Devs: This is 22 hours of work on this file.
CSW: No. It's going back and forth on many things.
Devs: then the file called bitcoin. Then you copies the file into the other?
CSW: Something like that
Devs: Then other changes.
CSW: Yes, for my solicitors.
Devs: Then the changes you made included changes designed to make the text of LaTex look more like the bitcoin white paper.
CSW: I was showing how the differences work
Devs: You were adjusting the spacing.
CSW: To show how they work.
Devs: So you could replicate line breaks
CSW: I was showing how it works.
Devs: We have prepared an animation of your changes. [can't see it on screen.]
CSW: To show how they work.
Devs: So you could replicate line breaks
CSW: I was showing how it works.
Devs: We have prepared an animation of your changes. [can't see it on screen.]
Devs: What it shows is you were moving and adjusting text.
CSW: Yep, to demonstrate how it works. The original was shown before any changes made.
Devs: The 2nd form of the video shows text overlaying on the control copy. If we look at the first slide, the only page that resembled was the 1st, right?
CSW: This thing is actually different too. I was showing how to create the file.
[plays animation that I can't see...]
Devs: We can see you were making changes one way, then the other.
CSW: Yep
Devs: We can see you were trying to get them to fit
CSW: Nope.
Devs: Started wrong and then fit.
CSW: The original was unmodified. I was showing to my solicitors.
Devs: These are your changes
CSW: Yes, showing how it works.
Devs: And if we focus on the abstract. Spaceskip, for example. It allows you to set a new base spacing and set limits for stretch and shrink. You introduced a number of these in the file.
CSW: Yes, but this isn't something you can just guess. I'm demonstrating that with 4 variables, you can't fake it.
[GloZo behind Gunning too? Controversial new BTC Core maintainer due to her financial backers... I hope she doesn't eat boogers like Jon did...]
Devs: Here's a doc from Stroz Freiberg [laughing] something mad just happened... Wait. It's back. Here's the file. Text operation. first number identifies the character at which the change starts. Then space skip.
CSW: Yep
Devs: We can see this happened on Nov 17. Nevermind. Switching to the words P2P, you insert the space skip command here...
CSW: Reinserted, yes.
Devs: You used a base parameter to... 03am.. You know what that is?
CSW: It's a variation of a move from the standard...
Devs: Looks like you're learning LaTex on the fly. It's supposed to approximate size based on proximity to "m"
CSW: Yep
Devs: So, this would take it to 3.7em?
CSW: It gives a minimum and max between...
Devs: You had to use the command a lot more later.
CSW: I showed more later
Devs: It's +3.4, right?
CSW: Generally?
Devs: So you could go up and down by x?
CSW: Generally
Devs: And you did lots of changes
CSW: Yes, you cant just set these values. If you change on, everything else changes.
Devs: When you muck around with spacing, it mucks up line breaks.
CSW: Yes, I was showing how difficult it would be to fake. Instead of /%, you can specify in mm. You could download the PDF and use Python script to measure the distance between words
Devs: If you were forging the white paper?
CSW: Yes, but I had given the sterile file before any of this work.
Devs: I made this file, so don't patent it, ok?
CSW: [glances]
Devs: Look at space skip
CSW: You can't do that here. These two work together. Set Stretch and...
Dev: Dr Wright, stop. It starts at 0.3em. You increased it to 0.6 then reduced it to 0.2.
CSW: Demonstrating what it looks like when making a large change. Documenting it.
Devs: How did you document it?
CSW: Screenshots and such. Shoosmiths were at my house.
Devs: I'm not interested in that. We can see it grow then reduce.
CSW: To demonstrate. You'll notice 3 values. I was showing the 3 body problem. You can't guess a value and hope it matches.
Devs: Then the shrinkage param is 0.1 and you increased to 0.3 before reducing, then choosing 0.16. You set the shrinkage lower than the base spacing. that doesn't make sense.
CSW: That's the point!
Devs: We know when you were showing it. You were doing this yourself.
CSW: Nope.
Devs: You're tweaking to try to get a fit to the white paper.
CSW: No, you wouldn't do that.
Devs: Not what I would do. What YOU DID
CSW: I was noting how ridiculous this was in demonstration.
Devs: You were learning LaTex on the job
CSW: I have LaTex files in disclosure from when I was at BDO
Devs: We'll go there.
CSW: Will you go the university papers I wrote on LaTex?
Devs: We will go where we go!
CSW: [Grins]
Devs: So you had to adjust it to fit.
CSW: I can keep saying for the demo
Devs: The diagrams were moved around because you rendered them to PDF
CSW: In this version.
Devs then changed for ones with TEX images
CSW: for some
Devs: Changed to PDF after 4.
CSW: Which is what was original.
Devs: And changes to X.
CSW: I don't recall. I showed a few things.
Devs: The one we saw as dated Nov 2023..
CSW: I don't recall the date.
Devs: This reflects all your changes.
CSW: Nope
Devs: The animation shows end, and then you submitted.
CSW: Actually, it shows the original
CSW: Yep, to demonstrate how it works. The original was shown before any changes made.
Devs: The 2nd form of the video shows text overlaying on the control copy. If we look at the first slide, the only page that resembled was the 1st, right?
CSW: This thing is actually different too. I was showing how to create the file.
[plays animation that I can't see...]
Devs: We can see you were making changes one way, then the other.
CSW: Yep
Devs: We can see you were trying to get them to fit
CSW: Nope.
Devs: Started wrong and then fit.
CSW: The original was unmodified. I was showing to my solicitors.
Devs: These are your changes
CSW: Yes, showing how it works.
Devs: And if we focus on the abstract. Spaceskip, for example. It allows you to set a new base spacing and set limits for stretch and shrink. You introduced a number of these in the file.
CSW: Yes, but this isn't something you can just guess. I'm demonstrating that with 4 variables, you can't fake it.
[GloZo behind Gunning too? Controversial new BTC Core maintainer due to her financial backers... I hope she doesn't eat boogers like Jon did...]
Devs: Here's a doc from Stroz Freiberg [laughing] something mad just happened... Wait. It's back. Here's the file. Text operation. first number identifies the character at which the change starts. Then space skip.
CSW: Yep
Devs: We can see this happened on Nov 17. Nevermind. Switching to the words P2P, you insert the space skip command here...
CSW: Reinserted, yes.
Devs: You used a base parameter to... 03am.. You know what that is?
CSW: It's a variation of a move from the standard...
Devs: Looks like you're learning LaTex on the fly. It's supposed to approximate size based on proximity to "m"
CSW: Yep
Devs: So, this would take it to 3.7em?
CSW: It gives a minimum and max between...
Devs: You had to use the command a lot more later.
CSW: I showed more later
Devs: It's +3.4, right?
CSW: Generally?
Devs: So you could go up and down by x?
CSW: Generally
Devs: And you did lots of changes
CSW: Yes, you cant just set these values. If you change on, everything else changes.
Devs: When you muck around with spacing, it mucks up line breaks.
CSW: Yes, I was showing how difficult it would be to fake. Instead of /%, you can specify in mm. You could download the PDF and use Python script to measure the distance between words
Devs: If you were forging the white paper?
CSW: Yes, but I had given the sterile file before any of this work.
Devs: I made this file, so don't patent it, ok?
CSW: [glances]
Devs: Look at space skip
CSW: You can't do that here. These two work together. Set Stretch and...
Dev: Dr Wright, stop. It starts at 0.3em. You increased it to 0.6 then reduced it to 0.2.
CSW: Demonstrating what it looks like when making a large change. Documenting it.
Devs: How did you document it?
CSW: Screenshots and such. Shoosmiths were at my house.
Devs: I'm not interested in that. We can see it grow then reduce.
CSW: To demonstrate. You'll notice 3 values. I was showing the 3 body problem. You can't guess a value and hope it matches.
Devs: Then the shrinkage param is 0.1 and you increased to 0.3 before reducing, then choosing 0.16. You set the shrinkage lower than the base spacing. that doesn't make sense.
CSW: That's the point!
Devs: We know when you were showing it. You were doing this yourself.
CSW: Nope.
Devs: You're tweaking to try to get a fit to the white paper.
CSW: No, you wouldn't do that.
Devs: Not what I would do. What YOU DID
CSW: I was noting how ridiculous this was in demonstration.
Devs: You were learning LaTex on the job
CSW: I have LaTex files in disclosure from when I was at BDO
Devs: We'll go there.
CSW: Will you go the university papers I wrote on LaTex?
Devs: We will go where we go!
CSW: [Grins]
Devs: So you had to adjust it to fit.
CSW: I can keep saying for the demo
Devs: The diagrams were moved around because you rendered them to PDF
CSW: In this version.
Devs then changed for ones with TEX images
CSW: for some
Devs: Changed to PDF after 4.
CSW: Which is what was original.
Devs: And changes to X.
CSW: I don't recall. I showed a few things.
Devs: The one we saw as dated Nov 2023..
CSW: I don't recall the date.
Devs: This reflects all your changes.
CSW: Nope
Devs: The animation shows end, and then you submitted.
CSW: Actually, it shows the original
[stream stuttering...]
Devs: These aren't the white paper files.
CSW: they are.
Devs: They're not.
CSW: they are.
Devs: Let's go to Field's witness statement. She says there were multiple files.
CSW: I'm not always clear.
Devs: I'm not going to let you blame solicitors.
CSW: I'm blaming myself.
Devs: You agreed this was right.
CSW: You're reading it differently. I recognize that it's important. the files compile to the bitcoin white paper.
Devs: You said compiled into Overleaf to make the LaTex files.
CSW: they didn't understand what I was explaning.
Devs: Why didn't you clarify?
CSW: Because it's still true. It compiles, and there's nothing wrong with the statement.
Devs: You're disgressing.
CSW: What you're getting wrong is that it compiles into my white paper.
Devs: There isn't metadata, but he said it would compile and then the compiled file will have metadata. But there was metadata.
CSW: Only when it got changed when I moved to a commercial version of the file. This is why there's no records before November. Because they had seen these files, I got the commercial account to make it work.
Devs: So you had the paid account in December.
CSW: But I didn't know there was no underlying metadata in it. I only realized when I upgraded that the extra data was there.
Devs: did you know Overleaf was recording your keystrokes?
CSW: I understand that it could be gotten.
Devs: We got this from your own account.
CSW: I didn't know you could get a dump
Devs: Either you have lied about metadata, or you just didn't know it was being kept. Which is it?
CSW: Lol It's a log file, not metadata. I don't think there is metadata. Overleaf might give a dump.
CSW: they are.
Devs: They're not.
CSW: they are.
Devs: Let's go to Field's witness statement. She says there were multiple files.
CSW: I'm not always clear.
Devs: I'm not going to let you blame solicitors.
CSW: I'm blaming myself.
Devs: You agreed this was right.
CSW: You're reading it differently. I recognize that it's important. the files compile to the bitcoin white paper.
Devs: You said compiled into Overleaf to make the LaTex files.
CSW: they didn't understand what I was explaning.
Devs: Why didn't you clarify?
CSW: Because it's still true. It compiles, and there's nothing wrong with the statement.
Devs: You're disgressing.
CSW: What you're getting wrong is that it compiles into my white paper.
Devs: There isn't metadata, but he said it would compile and then the compiled file will have metadata. But there was metadata.
CSW: Only when it got changed when I moved to a commercial version of the file. This is why there's no records before November. Because they had seen these files, I got the commercial account to make it work.
Devs: So you had the paid account in December.
CSW: But I didn't know there was no underlying metadata in it. I only realized when I upgraded that the extra data was there.
Devs: did you know Overleaf was recording your keystrokes?
CSW: I understand that it could be gotten.
Devs: We got this from your own account.
CSW: I didn't know you could get a dump
Devs: Either you have lied about metadata, or you just didn't know it was being kept. Which is it?
CSW: Lol It's a log file, not metadata. I don't think there is metadata. Overleaf might give a dump.
Dev: The maths old folder had material directly relevant to the creation of your LaTex files.
CSW: I accidentally posted files in that folder when working, but that has been discussed. I had already demonstrated all of this before the day you're saying.
Devs: No, it's not how..
CSW: No, you're not understanding. I created a folder a second time, so it used the new create date.
Devs: You have failed to produce the folder that held the earlier files.
CSW: Because I copied back and forth.
Devs: You deleted it
CSW: I moved it.
Devs: Letter from Shoosmiths from very recently. We see the maths old project was November 17 creation. CSW says it was copied from previous Overleaf files. He doesn't recall if they were downloaded or what, but he says he deleted. Why have you lied to me?
CSW: I didn't. I deleted other things. I haven't kept everything, and I copied among folders.
Devs: I said specifically, did you delete.
CSW: We're talking about different things. It changes when it moves.
Devs: You deleted relevant files weeks before request for adjournment.
CSW: I didn't want adjournment.
Devs: You know that was improper.
CSW: I was told the evidence would be accepted, so I used the files to show how tweaks would change the file.
Devs: they were not tiny tweaks.
CSW: they were. The point is that tiny tweaks make big changes.
CSW: I accidentally posted files in that folder when working, but that has been discussed. I had already demonstrated all of this before the day you're saying.
Devs: No, it's not how..
CSW: No, you're not understanding. I created a folder a second time, so it used the new create date.
Devs: You have failed to produce the folder that held the earlier files.
CSW: Because I copied back and forth.
Devs: You deleted it
CSW: I moved it.
Devs: Letter from Shoosmiths from very recently. We see the maths old project was November 17 creation. CSW says it was copied from previous Overleaf files. He doesn't recall if they were downloaded or what, but he says he deleted. Why have you lied to me?
CSW: I didn't. I deleted other things. I haven't kept everything, and I copied among folders.
Devs: I said specifically, did you delete.
CSW: We're talking about different things. It changes when it moves.
Devs: You deleted relevant files weeks before request for adjournment.
CSW: I didn't want adjournment.
Devs: You know that was improper.
CSW: I was told the evidence would be accepted, so I used the files to show how tweaks would change the file.
Devs: they were not tiny tweaks.
CSW: they were. The point is that tiny tweaks make big changes.
Devs: The versions produced in this way, you claim, are material the same as the public white paper.
CSW: With the caveats that I have clarified of Open Symbol, MyTex, etc...
Devs: You didn't make clear in your statement that they had been achieved by edits.
CSW: Demonstrating LaTex was done in front of solicitors.
Devs: What did you tell us and the court?
CSW: I didn't tell YOU anything. I told my solcitors. I didn't want adjournment.
Devs: You didn't tell us in the witness statement that you were adjusting.
CSW: I told my solic...
Devs: I am not interested in what YOU told them
CSW: Then how can I answer? lol I can't answer because you're going to let me answer.
Devs: You can answer as long as you admit you did this.
CSW: So I can answer as a perjury in front of Mellor and God or I can shut up?
Mellor: Was the final product the product of work?
CSW: What I
Mellor: Wait! Why didn't you disclose the starting point as genuine?
CSW: I did, M Lord.
Mellor: Where?
CSW: That's where the files started. I showed the process.
Mellor: When did you say not to worry about the chunks?
CSW: I had them to my house.
Mellor: Not interested in what you said
CSW: I had them to my house to show them. They didn't think it was important. I got them to understand by showing these demonstrations.
Mellor: Why did you not just show them the file that showed it was identical to the bitcoin white paper?
CSW: Overleaf has changes to OpenSymbol. I should them how the migration to overlead changed. I printed a paper and then they didn't think it was important.
Mellor: So now your case it you had to reconstruct it?
CSW: No, I deconstructed it to show how it worked.
Mellor: Ok
Devs: This is absurd. We can see it's untrue.
CSW: It's simple to see that it's true.
FIVE MINUTE BREAK
**Advertisement**
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
CSW: With the caveats that I have clarified of Open Symbol, MyTex, etc...
Devs: You didn't make clear in your statement that they had been achieved by edits.
CSW: Demonstrating LaTex was done in front of solicitors.
Devs: What did you tell us and the court?
CSW: I didn't tell YOU anything. I told my solcitors. I didn't want adjournment.
Devs: You didn't tell us in the witness statement that you were adjusting.
CSW: I told my solic...
Devs: I am not interested in what YOU told them
CSW: Then how can I answer? lol I can't answer because you're going to let me answer.
Devs: You can answer as long as you admit you did this.
CSW: So I can answer as a perjury in front of Mellor and God or I can shut up?
Mellor: Was the final product the product of work?
CSW: What I
Mellor: Wait! Why didn't you disclose the starting point as genuine?
CSW: I did, M Lord.
Mellor: Where?
CSW: That's where the files started. I showed the process.
Mellor: When did you say not to worry about the chunks?
CSW: I had them to my house.
Mellor: Not interested in what you said
CSW: I had them to my house to show them. They didn't think it was important. I got them to understand by showing these demonstrations.
Mellor: Why did you not just show them the file that showed it was identical to the bitcoin white paper?
CSW: Overleaf has changes to OpenSymbol. I should them how the migration to overlead changed. I printed a paper and then they didn't think it was important.
Mellor: So now your case it you had to reconstruct it?
CSW: No, I deconstructed it to show how it worked.
Mellor: Ok
Devs: This is absurd. We can see it's untrue.
CSW: It's simple to see that it's true.
FIVE MINUTE BREAK
**Advertisement**
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
And we're back with more!
Devs: Shortly before pre trial review, you produced a file.
CSW: They did
Devs: Letter from Shoosmiths. They produced a complied white paper. they address the process for compiling.
CSW: Yes, the migration to overleaf that doesn't have all the old plugins.
Devs: They mention some changes like changing quotes
CSW: YEs
Devs: And your use of IEEE citation generation
CSW: Yes
Devs: We're seeking to ID and produce an environment. He intends to give in his reply, the systems and changes.
CSW: Yes
Devs: Then you calculated to mislead us.
CSW: No
Devs: You said it would only be for minor changes.
CSW: That's what it was.
Devs: They were a recent creation and then manipulated.
CSW: You can see the old handwritten notes that mention LaTex in them
Devs: You referred to this earlier too. Here?
CSW: No. I'm talking about hand written docs.
Devs: You had handwritten LaTex on this file. It's the only one. and it's a forgery
CSW: nope, and not the doc I'm talking about.
Devs: At PTR, you were ordered to hand over the details on the environment.
CSW: Yes, but not the way you're putting it.
Devs: Here's your witness statements, not explaining that.
CSW: Solicitors had already seen the sterile file.
Devs: You didn't refer to these changes in your witness statement.
CSW: I was told to stop rambling
Devs: this is rambling.
CSW: You said it was.
Devs: Oh, lots of it was, but this is important!
CSW: I had to demo in October. Sorry. You keep thinking this is a time capsule, but it's part of my work.
Devs: What's the point of putting it in your witness statement if it wasn't relevant to use the command?
CSW: I do it the way I do it
Devs: So did Satoshi use it in the paper?
CSW: there are multiple versions of the paper, and some do.
Devs: This one has a minus 6 timezone.
CSW: Because of change of location. -7 goes to -6 when you add summer time
Devs: the creation day shows it was -6
CSW: Without summer time
Devs: Satoshi didn't use this.
CSWL You're forgetting timezones.
Devs: You're trying to describe configuring metadata properties. You put in daft properties in your statement.
CSW: You're trying to misundertsand me on purpose.
Devs: If you're in LaTex, which Satoshi WAS NOT, you wouldn't have done this.
CSW: If it's sumemr time...
Mellor: If I understand LaTex, there's no clock? How does that work?
CSW: You have to put in the timezone information if you want it to not change naturally to the system clock. If you don't specify GMT or EST specifically, it defaults to the system.
Mellor: I recall you saying it was manual when I asked before. You need to explain precisely how it works.
CSW: If you put -7
Mellor: In this command?
CSW: Yes
Mellor: Then what changed?
CSW: Time and the -7 or +1...
Mellor: Assume Satoshi is putting in creation date, why would he worry if it was timezone specific?
CSW: At the time, I was working in the US and Carribbean, so I was using US timezones, which comes with adjustments.
Mellor: If you're talking about Antigua and +1 which timezone are you discussing?
CSW: It becomes -6 in the PDF because it's Caribbean timezone
Gunning: So a traveling timezone?
CSW: YEs, which I still do because of my foreign work today.
COPA: We know how you came to put this command in the LaTex file. It was something you didn't do until 1 Dec 2023.
CSW: I demonstrated future files already...
COPA: We can see where the command goes in.
CSW: You can see the demos from after they came to my house.
COPA: You're lying
CSW: No
Devs: Shortly before pre trial review, you produced a file.
CSW: They did
Devs: Letter from Shoosmiths. They produced a complied white paper. they address the process for compiling.
CSW: Yes, the migration to overleaf that doesn't have all the old plugins.
Devs: They mention some changes like changing quotes
CSW: YEs
Devs: And your use of IEEE citation generation
CSW: Yes
Devs: We're seeking to ID and produce an environment. He intends to give in his reply, the systems and changes.
CSW: Yes
Devs: Then you calculated to mislead us.
CSW: No
Devs: You said it would only be for minor changes.
CSW: That's what it was.
Devs: They were a recent creation and then manipulated.
CSW: You can see the old handwritten notes that mention LaTex in them
Devs: You referred to this earlier too. Here?
CSW: No. I'm talking about hand written docs.
Devs: You had handwritten LaTex on this file. It's the only one. and it's a forgery
CSW: nope, and not the doc I'm talking about.
Devs: At PTR, you were ordered to hand over the details on the environment.
CSW: Yes, but not the way you're putting it.
Devs: Here's your witness statements, not explaining that.
CSW: Solicitors had already seen the sterile file.
Devs: You didn't refer to these changes in your witness statement.
CSW: I was told to stop rambling
Devs: this is rambling.
CSW: You said it was.
Devs: Oh, lots of it was, but this is important!
CSW: I had to demo in October. Sorry. You keep thinking this is a time capsule, but it's part of my work.
Devs: What's the point of putting it in your witness statement if it wasn't relevant to use the command?
CSW: I do it the way I do it
Devs: So did Satoshi use it in the paper?
CSW: there are multiple versions of the paper, and some do.
Devs: This one has a minus 6 timezone.
CSW: Because of change of location. -7 goes to -6 when you add summer time
Devs: the creation day shows it was -6
CSW: Without summer time
Devs: Satoshi didn't use this.
CSWL You're forgetting timezones.
Devs: You're trying to describe configuring metadata properties. You put in daft properties in your statement.
CSW: You're trying to misundertsand me on purpose.
Devs: If you're in LaTex, which Satoshi WAS NOT, you wouldn't have done this.
CSW: If it's sumemr time...
Mellor: If I understand LaTex, there's no clock? How does that work?
CSW: You have to put in the timezone information if you want it to not change naturally to the system clock. If you don't specify GMT or EST specifically, it defaults to the system.
Mellor: I recall you saying it was manual when I asked before. You need to explain precisely how it works.
CSW: If you put -7
Mellor: In this command?
CSW: Yes
Mellor: Then what changed?
CSW: Time and the -7 or +1...
Mellor: Assume Satoshi is putting in creation date, why would he worry if it was timezone specific?
CSW: At the time, I was working in the US and Carribbean, so I was using US timezones, which comes with adjustments.
Mellor: If you're talking about Antigua and +1 which timezone are you discussing?
CSW: It becomes -6 in the PDF because it's Caribbean timezone
Gunning: So a traveling timezone?
CSW: YEs, which I still do because of my foreign work today.
COPA: We know how you came to put this command in the LaTex file. It was something you didn't do until 1 Dec 2023.
CSW: I demonstrated future files already...
COPA: We can see where the command goes in.
CSW: You can see the demos from after they came to my house.
COPA: You're lying
CSW: No
COPA: Shows the unique creation process of the bitcoin white paper here. You're saying possession of the images is proof you're Satoshi. It's such delicate artistry.
CSW: they're done with unusual sizes and such
COPA: You highlighted you can search the tex in the diagrams, but that doesn't mean they were created in LaTex?
CSW: Or something like it.
COPA: Like Word?
CSW: I don't use Word.
COPA: You can see the text overflows the bounding box here?
CSW: Yep
COPA: anything else to notice?
CSW: No
COPA: Nothing obvious?
CSW: I don't have it memorized.
COPA: Let's put it side by side. The mistake is in your image is that the hash of 1 is the hash of 0.
CSW: Yep. My typo.
COPA: Error in your code
CSW: In the diagram
COPA: No. In the code. It doesn't make sense.
CSW: It does in other versions. This isn't the only time I used that.
COPA: A hash of tx zero?!
CSW: Others are from other docs where it would be relevant.
COPA: Oh dear... You know how Merkle trees work.
CSW: Of course.
COPA: It goes like this.
CSW: that's one way. I have an error here.
COPA: It doesn't make any sense because the hash is hash of hash 0 and 1
CSW: It's an error in the diagram. I know you want to pretend I don't know what I'm talking about even though I have BSV doing a million TPS which is a millionX faster than what you guys can do. It's faster than Oracle!
Mellor: Is that in the white paper?
CSW: And it's what they're trying to stop!
COPA: A first year CompSci student would know this is wrong.
CSW: That's wrong! this is how SPV works.
COPA: I hoped I woudn't have to do this, but let's look at the hash of the data set.
CSW: A hash of the tx to make an audit tree structure.
COPA: Then a further hash is taken to make a hash of the...
CSW: Which then becomes a binary tree structure. If there's a number search, then...
COPA: Wait for the question. Merkle says here. A Merkle tree structure. He describes a public file here.
CSW: Not in the way you're describing. He's showing how to make a signatures... You're incorrect.
COPA: A hash is taken of those things.
CSW: Scroll to the next page. You have a hash of the files.
COPA: Then a hash of the combo of the hashes.
CSW: In the binary structure.
COPA: Then of Y1 and Y2...
CSW: In this structure, yes, but it's different in bitcoin. It's a different structure. Bitcoin isn't a signature system
COPA: Then the rows above.
CSW: It allows searching by hashing like [shows with hands]
COPA: You're running away from my questions. I want the judge to see
CSW: You're not showing bitcoin though. This is Merkle for signatures!
COPA: At the top, there's the Merkle root. Representation of everything below.
CSW: No. If you follow the path...
COPA: I'll get there. If my public file is in the root, I don't need all of those to be repeated.
CSW: Correct.
COPA: I just need the hash of the public file and the combined hash of ...
CSW: 58
COPA: Yes
COPA: And then I only need these 3 hashes
CSW: Yep
COPA: then it includes Merkle root?
CSW: Yes
COPA: then it shows that it's in the block headers.
CSW: It shows that it is in the path. You only need the header to show that it's been accepted in the block.
COPA: So a Merkle tree isn't a search tree.
CSW: Yes it is. It's time ordered.
COPA: If you know what you're looking for, you can very quickly find it.
CSW: You're confounding the differences between bitcoin and Merkle signatures. A user doesn't need the full block. they only need the path and the transmitted path so you can have small users that don't run full nodes.
COPA: Merkle tress is opposite of a search tree.
CSW: No, it isn't
COPA: You're priving you're at the top.
CSW: You're proving you're in the block. This is an order structure database. It's a key value database, and amapping of numbers in order. Each hash is ordered. When I say a binary search tree, I'm saying key value database mapped. The structure is more complex.
COPA: I digressed considerably. Do you recall you made an error here?
CSW: Yes
COPA: When?
CSW: Years ago, but I don't know.
COPA: Couldn't be before bitcoin
CSW: Could have, but I may not have copied it across.
COPA: Shoosmiths sent us what was produced.
CSW: Either KLD or Stroz...
CSW: they're done with unusual sizes and such
COPA: You highlighted you can search the tex in the diagrams, but that doesn't mean they were created in LaTex?
CSW: Or something like it.
COPA: Like Word?
CSW: I don't use Word.
COPA: You can see the text overflows the bounding box here?
CSW: Yep
COPA: anything else to notice?
CSW: No
COPA: Nothing obvious?
CSW: I don't have it memorized.
COPA: Let's put it side by side. The mistake is in your image is that the hash of 1 is the hash of 0.
CSW: Yep. My typo.
COPA: Error in your code
CSW: In the diagram
COPA: No. In the code. It doesn't make sense.
CSW: It does in other versions. This isn't the only time I used that.
COPA: A hash of tx zero?!
CSW: Others are from other docs where it would be relevant.
COPA: Oh dear... You know how Merkle trees work.
CSW: Of course.
COPA: It goes like this.
CSW: that's one way. I have an error here.
COPA: It doesn't make any sense because the hash is hash of hash 0 and 1
CSW: It's an error in the diagram. I know you want to pretend I don't know what I'm talking about even though I have BSV doing a million TPS which is a millionX faster than what you guys can do. It's faster than Oracle!
Mellor: Is that in the white paper?
CSW: And it's what they're trying to stop!
COPA: A first year CompSci student would know this is wrong.
CSW: That's wrong! this is how SPV works.
COPA: I hoped I woudn't have to do this, but let's look at the hash of the data set.
CSW: A hash of the tx to make an audit tree structure.
COPA: Then a further hash is taken to make a hash of the...
CSW: Which then becomes a binary tree structure. If there's a number search, then...
COPA: Wait for the question. Merkle says here. A Merkle tree structure. He describes a public file here.
CSW: Not in the way you're describing. He's showing how to make a signatures... You're incorrect.
COPA: A hash is taken of those things.
CSW: Scroll to the next page. You have a hash of the files.
COPA: Then a hash of the combo of the hashes.
CSW: In the binary structure.
COPA: Then of Y1 and Y2...
CSW: In this structure, yes, but it's different in bitcoin. It's a different structure. Bitcoin isn't a signature system
COPA: Then the rows above.
CSW: It allows searching by hashing like [shows with hands]
COPA: You're running away from my questions. I want the judge to see
CSW: You're not showing bitcoin though. This is Merkle for signatures!
COPA: At the top, there's the Merkle root. Representation of everything below.
CSW: No. If you follow the path...
COPA: I'll get there. If my public file is in the root, I don't need all of those to be repeated.
CSW: Correct.
COPA: I just need the hash of the public file and the combined hash of ...
CSW: 58
COPA: Yes
COPA: And then I only need these 3 hashes
CSW: Yep
COPA: then it includes Merkle root?
CSW: Yes
COPA: then it shows that it's in the block headers.
CSW: It shows that it is in the path. You only need the header to show that it's been accepted in the block.
COPA: So a Merkle tree isn't a search tree.
CSW: Yes it is. It's time ordered.
COPA: If you know what you're looking for, you can very quickly find it.
CSW: You're confounding the differences between bitcoin and Merkle signatures. A user doesn't need the full block. they only need the path and the transmitted path so you can have small users that don't run full nodes.
COPA: Merkle tress is opposite of a search tree.
CSW: No, it isn't
COPA: You're priving you're at the top.
CSW: You're proving you're in the block. This is an order structure database. It's a key value database, and amapping of numbers in order. Each hash is ordered. When I say a binary search tree, I'm saying key value database mapped. The structure is more complex.
COPA: I digressed considerably. Do you recall you made an error here?
CSW: Yes
COPA: When?
CSW: Years ago, but I don't know.
COPA: Couldn't be before bitcoin
CSW: Could have, but I may not have copied it across.
COPA: Shoosmiths sent us what was produced.
CSW: Either KLD or Stroz...
COPA: You inadvertently put in a JSON file into the Maths folder.
CSW: No. I inadvertently downloaded and dragged it to the wrong spot.
COPA: We can see that file. Then lots of redaction. It was inserted inadvertently.
CSW: No. It's not the math file. I inadvertantly copied the bitcoin stuff into maths old.
COPA: The other way around?
CSW: No. Stroz captured it without my interaction.
COPA: If we hadn't seen the JSON, we wouldn't know you did all those changes.
CSW: Those were part of the demo
COPA: when you say inadvertently, you intended to suppress that file?
CSW: No
COPA: "he appears to have stopped editing and then created a new file and copied. It is reaosnable to to infer it was carried across.."
CSW: It notes it was copied into another file. Did demos, realized I was in the wrong folder and moved it over.
COPA: You said you copied SN file across before.
CSW: As it says, it came from a different project.
COPA: It's identical to the final version.
CSW: Because that's where it started.
COPA: This didn't exist until 19 November
CSW: But I had other files. There's nothing from previous.
COPA: The inference is correct.
CSW: Nope. Import means they were not on Overleaf. I had to take it from my computer.
COPA: You had Orr deny this inference already. You're lying.
CSW: I don't know what he said.
COPA: You didn't mention the extensive edits here
CSW: I wasn't doing them at the time.
COPA: I have been through each statement, and you didn't mention the edits.
CSW: BEcause I wasn't asked about those files. I called them "existing files."
COPA: You say here you demonstrated these edits, etc... And the only edits you made was for Shoosmiths.
CSW: And to make what they needed.
COPA: They gave us the unredacted versions last week.
CSW: Ok
COPA: That's how we made the animations.
CSW: I was unable to discuss with them, so I don't know.
COPA: None of the material changes were made during these demos.
CSW: No, they all were made during those demos. I downloaded multiple versions and compiled them a few ways and numbered.
COPA: We ID'd in red the changes that were made in these meetings
CSW: Some
COPA: No ALL
CSW: No. As I explained, there were multiple versions of the PDF. It's not me playing for hours. You're confusing the changes I was doing for...
COPA: This doesn't explain the maths folder. You deleted this.
CSW: You have them, don't you?
COPA: we don't have them
CSW: You do
COPA: The folder was created on 19 in Nov. We're going on a doom loop of you lying.
CSW: Whether you like how I act how you consider normal is on you.
COPA: No, you're just not telling the truth.
CSW: [rolls eyes]
COPA: You did use this to use the output, yes?
CSW: No. The output is different.
COPA: It's a blog file in the maths file
CSW: It's a test file
COPA: You didn't have Rosendahl's report yet.
CSW: I had Stroz' report.
COPA: Each line has a put command and ends with a letter
CSW: Yes
COPA: An aspose output run before 17 november.
CSW: I did, I don't recall the dates.
COPA: Before 17 november, you were talking about LaTex?
CSW: yes, to Shoosmiths.
COPA: Aspose would create a bad fake?
CSW: Horrible one.
COPA: There's an insane level of accuracy here. and screams forgery.
CSW: Or used a wacky tool
COPA: These have accuracy less than a 20th of a mm. A point is very tiny.
CSW: I don't know inches to mm in LaTex
COPA: Aspose seems to produce a pretty accurate thing
CSW: Not really
COPA: Colors are bad for example
CSW: no
COPA: You could find and replace?
CSW: For colors?
COPA: Copy and Place?
CSW: Yeah, that's a very basic function
COPA: Here is says block. See what this is representing.
CSW: Yes
[Gunning has penned himself in the head...]
COPA: You could fix for that in Aspose if trying to forge, right?
CSW: find and replace with numbers would be pretty hard.
COPA: I suspect you've done it though
CSW: No. I was checking Madden's work on a number of things.
COPA: You would also look for font size, you would do this too?
CSW: I guess.
CSW: No. I inadvertently downloaded and dragged it to the wrong spot.
COPA: We can see that file. Then lots of redaction. It was inserted inadvertently.
CSW: No. It's not the math file. I inadvertantly copied the bitcoin stuff into maths old.
COPA: The other way around?
CSW: No. Stroz captured it without my interaction.
COPA: If we hadn't seen the JSON, we wouldn't know you did all those changes.
CSW: Those were part of the demo
COPA: when you say inadvertently, you intended to suppress that file?
CSW: No
COPA: "he appears to have stopped editing and then created a new file and copied. It is reaosnable to to infer it was carried across.."
CSW: It notes it was copied into another file. Did demos, realized I was in the wrong folder and moved it over.
COPA: You said you copied SN file across before.
CSW: As it says, it came from a different project.
COPA: It's identical to the final version.
CSW: Because that's where it started.
COPA: This didn't exist until 19 November
CSW: But I had other files. There's nothing from previous.
COPA: The inference is correct.
CSW: Nope. Import means they were not on Overleaf. I had to take it from my computer.
COPA: You had Orr deny this inference already. You're lying.
CSW: I don't know what he said.
COPA: You didn't mention the extensive edits here
CSW: I wasn't doing them at the time.
COPA: I have been through each statement, and you didn't mention the edits.
CSW: BEcause I wasn't asked about those files. I called them "existing files."
COPA: You say here you demonstrated these edits, etc... And the only edits you made was for Shoosmiths.
CSW: And to make what they needed.
COPA: They gave us the unredacted versions last week.
CSW: Ok
COPA: That's how we made the animations.
CSW: I was unable to discuss with them, so I don't know.
COPA: None of the material changes were made during these demos.
CSW: No, they all were made during those demos. I downloaded multiple versions and compiled them a few ways and numbered.
COPA: We ID'd in red the changes that were made in these meetings
CSW: Some
COPA: No ALL
CSW: No. As I explained, there were multiple versions of the PDF. It's not me playing for hours. You're confusing the changes I was doing for...
COPA: This doesn't explain the maths folder. You deleted this.
CSW: You have them, don't you?
COPA: we don't have them
CSW: You do
COPA: The folder was created on 19 in Nov. We're going on a doom loop of you lying.
CSW: Whether you like how I act how you consider normal is on you.
COPA: No, you're just not telling the truth.
CSW: [rolls eyes]
COPA: You did use this to use the output, yes?
CSW: No. The output is different.
COPA: It's a blog file in the maths file
CSW: It's a test file
COPA: You didn't have Rosendahl's report yet.
CSW: I had Stroz' report.
COPA: Each line has a put command and ends with a letter
CSW: Yes
COPA: An aspose output run before 17 november.
CSW: I did, I don't recall the dates.
COPA: Before 17 november, you were talking about LaTex?
CSW: yes, to Shoosmiths.
COPA: Aspose would create a bad fake?
CSW: Horrible one.
COPA: There's an insane level of accuracy here. and screams forgery.
CSW: Or used a wacky tool
COPA: These have accuracy less than a 20th of a mm. A point is very tiny.
CSW: I don't know inches to mm in LaTex
COPA: Aspose seems to produce a pretty accurate thing
CSW: Not really
COPA: Colors are bad for example
CSW: no
COPA: You could find and replace?
CSW: For colors?
COPA: Copy and Place?
CSW: Yeah, that's a very basic function
COPA: Here is says block. See what this is representing.
CSW: Yes
[Gunning has penned himself in the head...]
COPA: You could fix for that in Aspose if trying to forge, right?
CSW: find and replace with numbers would be pretty hard.
COPA: I suspect you've done it though
CSW: No. I was checking Madden's work on a number of things.
COPA: You would also look for font size, you would do this too?
CSW: I guess.
COPA: then the word item. Aspose is output to 4 decimal places. Less than a thousands of a human hair.
CSW: Ok
COPA: Nobody in LaTex would do that?
CSW: Generally speaking, no
COPA: You see this has exactly identical coordinates from your doc?
CSW: Sure
COPA: Down to less than 1/20mm
CSW: It's a digital file.
COPA: You used Aspose to forge the images, didn't you?
CSW: Nope
COPA: You see the letters here. It's exactly where it starts. You placed it in Aspose.
CSW: No, it would output differently.
COPA: If you did it letter by letter, it would show forgery?
CSW: It would show a tool was used, but no either way.
COPA: You forgot to change this word from aspose output?
CSW: Where is this from?
COPA: Your LaTex file
CSW: Which one?
COPA: All of them. It's flawless.
CSW: Mine don't have that.
COPA: That's your file.
CSW: Not necessarily.
COPA: You wouldn't have done this that accurately if you were doing it from scratch.
CSW: When you record on a graphic tablet records it perfectly.
COPA: [gunning laughing] Mellor comments "schoolboy error."
CSW: If this is in my Overleaf, then it's a CAH insertion
COPA: The syntax is identical.
CSW: Similar
COPA: You used Aspose.
CSW: I did not. I have said how important this was to CAH and Ali Zafar
COPA: Your 11th witness statement says the code provided for figure 2 demonstrates the complex image creation, etc... The code meticulously defines the etc...
CSW: Yes
COPA: You were bigging up how you drew the file I took you too.
CSW: This has definitely been manipulated. You have it in evidence of tampering with my system.
COPA: Any fool would have realized item hasn't been placed by a human.
CSW: It's a waycom graphics tablet to draw.
[without seeing what they're seeing, I don't understand why this is damning]
COPA: Unfortunately for you, this was created in aspose and we see it all here. Except image one because of slanted text.
CSW: No.
COPA: We see the DNA of Aspose
CSW: I wouldn't know. CAH and Zafar were...
COPA: You don't see the DNA of Satoshi Nakamoto here.
CSW: You do
COPA: Your evidence is clearly deceitful.
CSW: My enemies have aligned, threatened witnesses and undermined my files.
COPA: These changes show you committing the act of forgery.
CSW: No
COPA: the animation shows it in progress.
CSW: No, and you are claiming that the edit can exist without the record of edit. It obviously wasn't done in my Overleaf. It shows them being loaded. While I had my computer being screenshotted by a third party...
COPA: You thought you could escape the forgery by withholding the metadata.
CSW: I sent Overleaf right away
COPA: But Overleaf showed you forging key by key!
CSW: And that doesn't show anything about aspose, so the forging must have been done on another machine!
COPA: Your files are a forgery.
CSW: they could be, but not by me.
COPA: they aren't evidence that you're Satoshi.
CSW: they are. But everyone is aligned against me
COPA: Your motion for adjournment was a fraud on the court wasn't it?
CSW: No, and you're working with my enemies.
COPA: Your claim to be Satoshi is a fraud.
CSW: No. I have proved bitcoin can scale beyond Oracle and any Silicon Valley system. Nobody can do a million tx/second. Customers don't care if I'm Satoshi. they care about the science and the tech.
COPA: those are my questions.
Mellor: You're released
CSW: thank you, M Lord.
See you 10:30 Monday.
**Advertisement**
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
CSW: Ok
COPA: Nobody in LaTex would do that?
CSW: Generally speaking, no
COPA: You see this has exactly identical coordinates from your doc?
CSW: Sure
COPA: Down to less than 1/20mm
CSW: It's a digital file.
COPA: You used Aspose to forge the images, didn't you?
CSW: Nope
COPA: You see the letters here. It's exactly where it starts. You placed it in Aspose.
CSW: No, it would output differently.
COPA: If you did it letter by letter, it would show forgery?
CSW: It would show a tool was used, but no either way.
COPA: You forgot to change this word from aspose output?
CSW: Where is this from?
COPA: Your LaTex file
CSW: Which one?
COPA: All of them. It's flawless.
CSW: Mine don't have that.
COPA: That's your file.
CSW: Not necessarily.
COPA: You wouldn't have done this that accurately if you were doing it from scratch.
CSW: When you record on a graphic tablet records it perfectly.
COPA: [gunning laughing] Mellor comments "schoolboy error."
CSW: If this is in my Overleaf, then it's a CAH insertion
COPA: The syntax is identical.
CSW: Similar
COPA: You used Aspose.
CSW: I did not. I have said how important this was to CAH and Ali Zafar
COPA: Your 11th witness statement says the code provided for figure 2 demonstrates the complex image creation, etc... The code meticulously defines the etc...
CSW: Yes
COPA: You were bigging up how you drew the file I took you too.
CSW: This has definitely been manipulated. You have it in evidence of tampering with my system.
COPA: Any fool would have realized item hasn't been placed by a human.
CSW: It's a waycom graphics tablet to draw.
[without seeing what they're seeing, I don't understand why this is damning]
COPA: Unfortunately for you, this was created in aspose and we see it all here. Except image one because of slanted text.
CSW: No.
COPA: We see the DNA of Aspose
CSW: I wouldn't know. CAH and Zafar were...
COPA: You don't see the DNA of Satoshi Nakamoto here.
CSW: You do
COPA: Your evidence is clearly deceitful.
CSW: My enemies have aligned, threatened witnesses and undermined my files.
COPA: These changes show you committing the act of forgery.
CSW: No
COPA: the animation shows it in progress.
CSW: No, and you are claiming that the edit can exist without the record of edit. It obviously wasn't done in my Overleaf. It shows them being loaded. While I had my computer being screenshotted by a third party...
COPA: You thought you could escape the forgery by withholding the metadata.
CSW: I sent Overleaf right away
COPA: But Overleaf showed you forging key by key!
CSW: And that doesn't show anything about aspose, so the forging must have been done on another machine!
COPA: Your files are a forgery.
CSW: they could be, but not by me.
COPA: they aren't evidence that you're Satoshi.
CSW: they are. But everyone is aligned against me
COPA: Your motion for adjournment was a fraud on the court wasn't it?
CSW: No, and you're working with my enemies.
COPA: Your claim to be Satoshi is a fraud.
CSW: No. I have proved bitcoin can scale beyond Oracle and any Silicon Valley system. Nobody can do a million tx/second. Customers don't care if I'm Satoshi. they care about the science and the tech.
COPA: those are my questions.
Mellor: You're released
CSW: thank you, M Lord.
See you 10:30 Monday.
**Advertisement**
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
@UnrollHelper
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
