views
March 12, 2024
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright "The Satoshi Trial" Master Thread.
Tuesday, DAY 20
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
shop.getbezel.com
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright "The Satoshi Trial" Master Thread.
Tuesday, DAY 20
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
shop.getbezel.com
Court starts in 45 minutes. Americans think the government can "save time" before the British do.
I have extra time to lift weights and sip some coffee!
Haha
I have extra time to lift weights and sip some coffee!
Haha
If the earth was flat, daylight savings could occur on the same day for everyone on earth...
Judge Mellor commenting that the closing arguments were obviously a lot of work.
Devs solicitor commenting he may give an oral submission.
[I'll be paraphrasing]
Hough: It should be obvious Wright has lied and lied and lied. He isn't Satoshi, and didn't write the white paper.
It has no been proved and accepted that the LaTex docs are forgeries. Accepted by both sides. All of his documents were fakes seeded to his drive. We have seen it in technicolor animation, and CSW even accepts some forgeries but blames others.
He also attacked Ontier for his fraudulent MYOB docs.
And he blames a huge cast of characters. The abuse of the court must end.
We submit he consistently forges his evidence to say he is Satoshi. The pattern is so extensive that it strongly supports our positive case that he is not Satoshi. The volume and range is so great.
He has had numerous opportunities to prove he is Satoshi, and has failed. His explanations have failed and are seriously dishonest. He has had a strong incentive to provide proof with his limitless resources as shown by his large legal team to my right.
The flaws in his story are so riddled with dishonesty, that it confidently be rejected as fiction...
Devs solicitor commenting he may give an oral submission.
[I'll be paraphrasing]
Hough: It should be obvious Wright has lied and lied and lied. He isn't Satoshi, and didn't write the white paper.
It has no been proved and accepted that the LaTex docs are forgeries. Accepted by both sides. All of his documents were fakes seeded to his drive. We have seen it in technicolor animation, and CSW even accepts some forgeries but blames others.
He also attacked Ontier for his fraudulent MYOB docs.
And he blames a huge cast of characters. The abuse of the court must end.
We submit he consistently forges his evidence to say he is Satoshi. The pattern is so extensive that it strongly supports our positive case that he is not Satoshi. The volume and range is so great.
He has had numerous opportunities to prove he is Satoshi, and has failed. His explanations have failed and are seriously dishonest. He has had a strong incentive to provide proof with his limitless resources as shown by his large legal team to my right.
The flaws in his story are so riddled with dishonesty, that it confidently be rejected as fiction...
His argument that the real Satoshi hasn't arrived and his overall body of work are bad.
Here is 12 reasons why he can't be Satoshi:
1: The white paper was produced in Open Office, not Latex. Real Satoshi would know that.
2: Exchange with Adam Back. Real Satoshi would know Back wasn't dismissive of bitcoin. His story is shown to be false by the emails.
3: Wei Dai. Real Satoshi discovered his work via Back. Wright claims to have liked Dai earlier.
3: PGP key. Real Satoshi would know the PGP key was posted before 2011 and it was primarily for signing. Wright's accounts go to show he didn't generate it.
4: The code: the real Satoshi would know how it worked. He would know UNINT and checkblock... Wright doesn't
5: Upload was a free hosting service from Dubai, not Aus
7: (where is 6?) Patch Tuesday didn't make sense.
8: Mining requirements. Real Satoshi would know it would not cost $11k in electricity.
9: Bitcoin txs. Real Satoshi would know he didn't send bitcoin to Zooko. He would know who would have received bitcoin, like Nick Bohm.
10: Genesis block. Real Satoshi would know there is a public key for Genesis block.
11: Real Satoshi would know Satoshi used the word "cryptocurrency."
12: Real Satoshi would not have rejected Gavin using GitHub and Wlad had nothing to do it.
I got my numbering wrong, but the facts are true.
Here is 12 reasons why he can't be Satoshi:
1: The white paper was produced in Open Office, not Latex. Real Satoshi would know that.
2: Exchange with Adam Back. Real Satoshi would know Back wasn't dismissive of bitcoin. His story is shown to be false by the emails.
3: Wei Dai. Real Satoshi discovered his work via Back. Wright claims to have liked Dai earlier.
3: PGP key. Real Satoshi would know the PGP key was posted before 2011 and it was primarily for signing. Wright's accounts go to show he didn't generate it.
4: The code: the real Satoshi would know how it worked. He would know UNINT and checkblock... Wright doesn't
5: Upload was a free hosting service from Dubai, not Aus
7: (where is 6?) Patch Tuesday didn't make sense.
8: Mining requirements. Real Satoshi would know it would not cost $11k in electricity.
9: Bitcoin txs. Real Satoshi would know he didn't send bitcoin to Zooko. He would know who would have received bitcoin, like Nick Bohm.
10: Genesis block. Real Satoshi would know there is a public key for Genesis block.
11: Real Satoshi would know Satoshi used the word "cryptocurrency."
12: Real Satoshi would not have rejected Gavin using GitHub and Wlad had nothing to do it.
I got my numbering wrong, but the facts are true.
His docs are relevant in 3 ways.
1: Real Satoshi wouldn't have to forge docs about the development of the bitcoin system.
2: Forgeries show CSW creating a false back story linking false papers to his work. They're relevant to his argument that precursor work isn't supportive of his claims.
3: Forgeries are extremely relevant to his credibility. He failed to confess to his obvious forgeries. His credibility is at the heart of his case.
He has no good answers to allegations. His counsel suggests the court could resolve the identity issue without dealing with his forgeries. This is ridiculous. The original allegations were based on public information. CSW's disclosure and reliance docs were examined and COPA set out its case on the docs. His docs are forgeries because he is a fraud. CSW was given the right to answer to his forgeries.
CSW had 2.5 months to answer, and CSW's time to response was unusually timed, but allowed by the court. He was allowed to address and redress expert evidence.
There is no basis to ignore the forgery allegations. We have properly pleaded and submit that he is trying to avoid obvious findings.
He says forgeries are improbable. The attempt to raise the standard of proof is not justified. He cites another judge in his skeleton in how people are likely to be honest.
The standard of proof is balance of probability. It's true that most people are common sense folks who aren't likely to lie. But Wright's case hinges on many, many people acting dishonestly in many ways.
He also says COPA's case is not adequate. We think our case is fully justified. Experts reached broad agreement that the lack of time was not relevant with obvious forgeries. CSW abandoned his experts amid this.
CSW says his environment was not properly considered. But he didn't say anything about these features initially, but in fact refused to note these features initially. Saying they were irrelevant until they became very relevant to his argument.
Mellor: Ah yes, irrelevant.
Hough: They were able to consider his environment, and all agreed they made no difference to their conclusions. They also agreed in disputing his responses.
There's nothing that matters about docs being edited. It's the manner and signs of backdating. COPA has always made this clear.
CSW's retreat from primary reliance docs isn't a sign of candor from the start. It's reactions from Madden's report. It is evidence of more lies.
1: Real Satoshi wouldn't have to forge docs about the development of the bitcoin system.
2: Forgeries show CSW creating a false back story linking false papers to his work. They're relevant to his argument that precursor work isn't supportive of his claims.
3: Forgeries are extremely relevant to his credibility. He failed to confess to his obvious forgeries. His credibility is at the heart of his case.
He has no good answers to allegations. His counsel suggests the court could resolve the identity issue without dealing with his forgeries. This is ridiculous. The original allegations were based on public information. CSW's disclosure and reliance docs were examined and COPA set out its case on the docs. His docs are forgeries because he is a fraud. CSW was given the right to answer to his forgeries.
CSW had 2.5 months to answer, and CSW's time to response was unusually timed, but allowed by the court. He was allowed to address and redress expert evidence.
There is no basis to ignore the forgery allegations. We have properly pleaded and submit that he is trying to avoid obvious findings.
He says forgeries are improbable. The attempt to raise the standard of proof is not justified. He cites another judge in his skeleton in how people are likely to be honest.
The standard of proof is balance of probability. It's true that most people are common sense folks who aren't likely to lie. But Wright's case hinges on many, many people acting dishonestly in many ways.
He also says COPA's case is not adequate. We think our case is fully justified. Experts reached broad agreement that the lack of time was not relevant with obvious forgeries. CSW abandoned his experts amid this.
CSW says his environment was not properly considered. But he didn't say anything about these features initially, but in fact refused to note these features initially. Saying they were irrelevant until they became very relevant to his argument.
Mellor: Ah yes, irrelevant.
Hough: They were able to consider his environment, and all agreed they made no difference to their conclusions. They also agreed in disputing his responses.
There's nothing that matters about docs being edited. It's the manner and signs of backdating. COPA has always made this clear.
CSW's retreat from primary reliance docs isn't a sign of candor from the start. It's reactions from Madden's report. It is evidence of more lies.
The state of the expert evidence and the attacks on Madden... The forensics experts reached almost complete agreement. Almost all docs are shown as manipulated - deliberate backdating.
CSW attacked the competence of all experts except Rosendahl who couldn't be attacked for expertise, but did attack all of their independence.
CSW said Travers chose bad experts and stopped him from choosing better. He asked to bring in Bryant before abandoning him says later. He even abandoned his own experts.
We are entitled to rely on any of CSW's expert reports as evidence.
The joint statements between Placks and Lynch also agree with Madden. We can infer from his refusal to call his own experts that they would have agreed with COPA's experts.
CSW is not entitled to rely on Placks' divergences from Madden because he was not allowed to be crossed. Lynch reached complete agreement with Madden and Rosendahl.
CSW attacked the competence of all experts except Rosendahl who couldn't be attacked for expertise, but did attack all of their independence.
CSW said Travers chose bad experts and stopped him from choosing better. He asked to bring in Bryant before abandoning him says later. He even abandoned his own experts.
We are entitled to rely on any of CSW's expert reports as evidence.
The joint statements between Placks and Lynch also agree with Madden. We can infer from his refusal to call his own experts that they would have agreed with COPA's experts.
CSW is not entitled to rely on Placks' divergences from Madden because he was not allowed to be crossed. Lynch reached complete agreement with Madden and Rosendahl.
Instead, Wright tried to make himself appear to be his own expert which should be ignored. It's not admissible because he cannot be independent. Turning to the attack on Madden. The attack is unfair and trying to play the man when he can't play the ball.
His attacks go nowhere because his own experts agreed with Madden.
They disputed Wright's own explanations and in cross, they only disputed very few of his findings which is why his cross was so short. Choosing not to call his own experts shows that they knew they would agree with Madden in court.
CSW says Madden had insufficient expertise.
22 years in forensic investigation including time at Stroz Friedberg. Director of ops and running his own firm and being an expert in many big cases.
CSW accepts the text acknowledges that the first draft of report can be done properly. The work of expert analysis can be done WITH a firm, and Madden simply dictated to and took full responsibility for the final reports.
He was entirely open about the process. It wasn't hidden, and he was frank. The suggestion that it undermines his independence is unfounded.
[This is soooooo slippery - even for a huffy lawyer...]
He describes the steps he went through and illustrates with screenshots. He's also careful to say when he cannot overstate his case. He even treated overlapping editing times carefully saying he draws no conclusions from this. He also takes into account that it could be because multiple VMs could have been used simultaneously.
His attacks go nowhere because his own experts agreed with Madden.
They disputed Wright's own explanations and in cross, they only disputed very few of his findings which is why his cross was so short. Choosing not to call his own experts shows that they knew they would agree with Madden in court.
CSW says Madden had insufficient expertise.
22 years in forensic investigation including time at Stroz Friedberg. Director of ops and running his own firm and being an expert in many big cases.
CSW accepts the text acknowledges that the first draft of report can be done properly. The work of expert analysis can be done WITH a firm, and Madden simply dictated to and took full responsibility for the final reports.
He was entirely open about the process. It wasn't hidden, and he was frank. The suggestion that it undermines his independence is unfounded.
[This is soooooo slippery - even for a huffy lawyer...]
He describes the steps he went through and illustrates with screenshots. He's also careful to say when he cannot overstate his case. He even treated overlapping editing times carefully saying he draws no conclusions from this. He also takes into account that it could be because multiple VMs could have been used simultaneously.
It's ridiculous to assume Madden's reports were too rushed. Anyone who has read them would see how thorough they are. He looked to the manufacturer of the BDO pad and discovered they couldn't have been from 2007 because the pad wasn't for sale until 2012. CSW's response was laughable because it's absurd he wouldn't know more than the manufacturer just because he worked at Staples.
Then on Tominaga Nakamoto, CSW took JSTORE docs with bad footers, and Madden showed...
Then the Mstat manipulation... The actual doc didn't contain text from the white paper, and he found the clear predecessor doc from which they were lifted.
In each example, his work was the opposite of haste. Madden made judgment of the direction of editing, and his findings were underscored by things like the maths section where there is a reference to BCH, a fork from 2017. Remnant text was modified to look older, but BCH's 2017 date is a clear fact.
CSW says Madden was unwilling to grapple with CSW's environment. This is untrue. He considered VMs even before CSW's statements about it. Madden didn't dispute his use of various systems like Citrix years ago. He provided little evidence of these systems anyways, but we can't confirm or deny what systems were used.
the real problem is that even if these systems were used, they don't change our allegations of forgery.
They don't explain why metadata timestamps could include Grammarly, MathTime or other timestamps from years later.
Wright knew timestamps would be updated by his edits.
Wright argues that his file system causes files to be merged and attributes it to SAN. Madden answers that in his 4th report that a bad SAN can't produce a document like this. It would create a frankenstein doc if anything at all. Splicing docs together is highly unlikely
In our reading of Madden's cross, the explanations weren't challenged because it couldn't be suggested that his explanations were wrong.
CSW's assertion that multiple VMs could produce this, but COPA doesn't even say we find this problematic.
The remarkable overlap in edit times are wild, but not the primary reason we find them to be forgeries.
Then on Tominaga Nakamoto, CSW took JSTORE docs with bad footers, and Madden showed...
Then the Mstat manipulation... The actual doc didn't contain text from the white paper, and he found the clear predecessor doc from which they were lifted.
In each example, his work was the opposite of haste. Madden made judgment of the direction of editing, and his findings were underscored by things like the maths section where there is a reference to BCH, a fork from 2017. Remnant text was modified to look older, but BCH's 2017 date is a clear fact.
CSW says Madden was unwilling to grapple with CSW's environment. This is untrue. He considered VMs even before CSW's statements about it. Madden didn't dispute his use of various systems like Citrix years ago. He provided little evidence of these systems anyways, but we can't confirm or deny what systems were used.
the real problem is that even if these systems were used, they don't change our allegations of forgery.
They don't explain why metadata timestamps could include Grammarly, MathTime or other timestamps from years later.
Wright knew timestamps would be updated by his edits.
Wright argues that his file system causes files to be merged and attributes it to SAN. Madden answers that in his 4th report that a bad SAN can't produce a document like this. It would create a frankenstein doc if anything at all. Splicing docs together is highly unlikely
In our reading of Madden's cross, the explanations weren't challenged because it couldn't be suggested that his explanations were wrong.
CSW's assertion that multiple VMs could produce this, but COPA doesn't even say we find this problematic.
The remarkable overlap in edit times are wild, but not the primary reason we find them to be forgeries.
Here's the real forgeries.
Starting with the Ontier email forgery during trial.
CSW, in his original evidence said Ontier was given login details in late 2019 and gave his evidence. His edits couldn't have impacted things because they happened after snapshot was taken. But Ontier explained they didn't get logins until March 2020.
The email chain involving Ramona Watts brought CSW back to the stand. CSW repeated the late 2019 date, and that he had the emails.
Ontier replied with the copies in Feb 2024 showing discrepancies.
CSW clearly emails Mr Cohen as shown by timestamps of the hops. He backdated the header, sent to Ramona and she forwarded it to Shoosmiths. The encoded information was clearly from 2024.
He said the email was a spoofed email planted by unknown enemies.
It's worth explaining that believing CSW requires the following to have happened:
And it sounds like a parody, but it's what his story requires.
2 December 2019, he would have had to write 2 different emails. One about Info Defense and the other about MYOB for no obvious reason. As a matter of pure coincidence, Ontier would have to have lost the MYOB email but retained the Info Defense email. At some point, CSW's enemy would then have had to get the native email in order to send the spoofed one, and then Ramona would have to independently decide to send the email about the login details. And CSW would have to have been very lucky to have the timestamps encoded the way they were, and then some really extraordinary things would have to happen. The bad actor would then have had to time it perfectly to email Ontier on the same day Ramona did on Feb 18, 2024. The house must have been bugged, the bad actor quickly spoofing the email with short time and at astonishing speed before Ramona could forward. And that has to have happened. When returning to cross, which couldn't be predicted, the bad actor has to have made an extraordinary prediction about this timing. Then the real email and the fake email would be found, but also lost the email chain that would exonerate CSW. Then Grabiner would run through it... After CSW was given time to think, CSW would remarkably fail to say the email from Ontier was spoofed. His 15th statement instead explained why the email about Info Defense might not have been genuine. He accepts now that it was genuine.
This is so absurd. It speaks volumes about CSW's preparedness to lie, forge and then lie some more.
[5 Minute Break]
Starting with the Ontier email forgery during trial.
CSW, in his original evidence said Ontier was given login details in late 2019 and gave his evidence. His edits couldn't have impacted things because they happened after snapshot was taken. But Ontier explained they didn't get logins until March 2020.
The email chain involving Ramona Watts brought CSW back to the stand. CSW repeated the late 2019 date, and that he had the emails.
Ontier replied with the copies in Feb 2024 showing discrepancies.
CSW clearly emails Mr Cohen as shown by timestamps of the hops. He backdated the header, sent to Ramona and she forwarded it to Shoosmiths. The encoded information was clearly from 2024.
He said the email was a spoofed email planted by unknown enemies.
It's worth explaining that believing CSW requires the following to have happened:
And it sounds like a parody, but it's what his story requires.
2 December 2019, he would have had to write 2 different emails. One about Info Defense and the other about MYOB for no obvious reason. As a matter of pure coincidence, Ontier would have to have lost the MYOB email but retained the Info Defense email. At some point, CSW's enemy would then have had to get the native email in order to send the spoofed one, and then Ramona would have to independently decide to send the email about the login details. And CSW would have to have been very lucky to have the timestamps encoded the way they were, and then some really extraordinary things would have to happen. The bad actor would then have had to time it perfectly to email Ontier on the same day Ramona did on Feb 18, 2024. The house must have been bugged, the bad actor quickly spoofing the email with short time and at astonishing speed before Ramona could forward. And that has to have happened. When returning to cross, which couldn't be predicted, the bad actor has to have made an extraordinary prediction about this timing. Then the real email and the fake email would be found, but also lost the email chain that would exonerate CSW. Then Grabiner would run through it... After CSW was given time to think, CSW would remarkably fail to say the email from Ontier was spoofed. His 15th statement instead explained why the email about Info Defense might not have been genuine. He accepts now that it was genuine.
This is so absurd. It speaks volumes about CSW's preparedness to lie, forge and then lie some more.
[5 Minute Break]
BACK!
Let's see his interest in biological networks with bitcoin's proposed topology. The text says "I have released as Satoshi..."
the remnant text was "bitcoin was first released..."
It goes on to include a series of URLs from 2013-14. CSW could only answer saying it was the accident of the magic word "Citrix" to make this go away. It's directly at odds with the experts.
Madden shows it's 2 different docs, but CSW says he can't know exactly how they were merged.
One matches an SSRN doc published in 2017. CSW only says "that's got to be edited out."
It also had a Grammarly timestamp from 2017 and uses schemas not available until later from Word and MathTime.
The doc also refers to checkblock header and things like "core" not used until later. There have to be so many things overlooked not to conclude it's just a forgery.
Also, technically, it shows editing to make it look like it recreates something from before the creation of bitcoin.
[missed a bit. Kids woke up...]
Madden found the source of some of this paper from Chinese academics from 2012. Also about small world network analysis and epidemic diffusion, but nothing about bitcoin. We can see an obvious parallel except that the source doc has different references.
The references are identical to Chinese paper except the references from 2009-2012. We see that "ref" was often left in, but no link to the ref because those were gone. Also, the fonts from "Minion" don't work for the time period.
CSW says research was shared, and that he received pre-release papers. He separately explained away the fonts saying they must have been imported. This is embarrassingly poor. The fact that he would have had a paper 4 years ahead of its publication is absurdly improbable. Either, they happened to have pre-publication papers themselves in order to reference, or Craig has seeded this false paper trail to look like he was developing bitcoin.
Let's see his interest in biological networks with bitcoin's proposed topology. The text says "I have released as Satoshi..."
the remnant text was "bitcoin was first released..."
It goes on to include a series of URLs from 2013-14. CSW could only answer saying it was the accident of the magic word "Citrix" to make this go away. It's directly at odds with the experts.
Madden shows it's 2 different docs, but CSW says he can't know exactly how they were merged.
One matches an SSRN doc published in 2017. CSW only says "that's got to be edited out."
It also had a Grammarly timestamp from 2017 and uses schemas not available until later from Word and MathTime.
The doc also refers to checkblock header and things like "core" not used until later. There have to be so many things overlooked not to conclude it's just a forgery.
Also, technically, it shows editing to make it look like it recreates something from before the creation of bitcoin.
[missed a bit. Kids woke up...]
Madden found the source of some of this paper from Chinese academics from 2012. Also about small world network analysis and epidemic diffusion, but nothing about bitcoin. We can see an obvious parallel except that the source doc has different references.
The references are identical to Chinese paper except the references from 2009-2012. We see that "ref" was often left in, but no link to the ref because those were gone. Also, the fonts from "Minion" don't work for the time period.
CSW says research was shared, and that he received pre-release papers. He separately explained away the fonts saying they must have been imported. This is embarrassingly poor. The fact that he would have had a paper 4 years ahead of its publication is absurdly improbable. Either, they happened to have pre-publication papers themselves in order to reference, or Craig has seeded this false paper trail to look like he was developing bitcoin.
Onto Kleiman docs.
He has relied upon several versions in the past, all in evidence. This is an email from CSW to Ira from 2014 supposedly forwarding an email he had sent to Dave from 2008 from Info Defense email address. "I need your help editing a paper..."
This version appears in COPA's evidence.
Other versions in disclosure though too. All versions have the same content either from Info Defense Address or RCJB address. They all make the case that CSW is Satoshi, but also are from when he was being bailed out by Mr Matthews. He forwards the email to Stefan saying "More history" as a way to show evidence of his history as Satoshi.
He presents it as his own evidence that he is Satoshi.
It was also provided to Andrew O'Hagan.
These all must be fake. The Info Defense domain wasn't registered until 2009 and RCJBR in 2011.
Wright says this was due to change in service. Madden shows that timestamps are at odds with the message. Anachronistic domain names. Forwarding dates that don't line up... Findings can only have occurred with an edited email having been forwarded. There must have been forgery going on in 2014 when the original fake email was sent to Ira Kleiman to convince them that he and Dave made bitcoin together to get help with ATO.
CSW says the issues with headers add to his belief that the doc was tampered with. But he comes up with the story that all the emails had been forged and he can tell they have been forged because he wouldn't have written the final paragraph.
Instead, he says he sent the email to Dave with just the first 2 paragraphs, but what happened was disgruntled employees had hoped to get rich as a result of outing him. He says the difference in the domain are due to migration.
The problem is that he forwarded the allegedly fake emails himself. On the stand, he said "materially the same" even though they were 1/3rd different.
This also contradicts the forward to Matthews and his confirming for O'Hagan that it was real.
Why would conspirators add an inconsequential paragraph?
So much for the Kleiman email...
He has relied upon several versions in the past, all in evidence. This is an email from CSW to Ira from 2014 supposedly forwarding an email he had sent to Dave from 2008 from Info Defense email address. "I need your help editing a paper..."
This version appears in COPA's evidence.
Other versions in disclosure though too. All versions have the same content either from Info Defense Address or RCJB address. They all make the case that CSW is Satoshi, but also are from when he was being bailed out by Mr Matthews. He forwards the email to Stefan saying "More history" as a way to show evidence of his history as Satoshi.
He presents it as his own evidence that he is Satoshi.
It was also provided to Andrew O'Hagan.
These all must be fake. The Info Defense domain wasn't registered until 2009 and RCJBR in 2011.
Wright says this was due to change in service. Madden shows that timestamps are at odds with the message. Anachronistic domain names. Forwarding dates that don't line up... Findings can only have occurred with an edited email having been forwarded. There must have been forgery going on in 2014 when the original fake email was sent to Ira Kleiman to convince them that he and Dave made bitcoin together to get help with ATO.
CSW says the issues with headers add to his belief that the doc was tampered with. But he comes up with the story that all the emails had been forged and he can tell they have been forged because he wouldn't have written the final paragraph.
Instead, he says he sent the email to Dave with just the first 2 paragraphs, but what happened was disgruntled employees had hoped to get rich as a result of outing him. He says the difference in the domain are due to migration.
The problem is that he forwarded the allegedly fake emails himself. On the stand, he said "materially the same" even though they were 1/3rd different.
This also contradicts the forward to Matthews and his confirming for O'Hagan that it was real.
Why would conspirators add an inconsequential paragraph?
So much for the Kleiman email...
Next, the Mstat paper. An alleged assignment for his degree. Metadata shows it from 2005 with instructor as Gerlack (sp?) and written by CSW in 2005.
It's about Poisson Competing Process.
"we consider the scenario of an attacker trying to outrun the competing chain..."
He is clearly trying to show rounds of time and "timecoin" as predecessors to bitcoin.
You'll see comparisons of face value vs embedded text shows a large degree of similarity to the bitcoin white paper. Race between honest and attacker chains...
You'll see the line-break at "gamblers" and before "ruin" which shows the same break as the bitcoin white paper.
Edited to refer to time-rounds and such. This was done in 2005, allegedly, 3 years before the bitcoin white paper.
Let's see two docs at once. They are the same in many ways. But the authentic doc has a different due date. On page 2 of authentic doc, there are a series of questions and appear to be a real homework assignment. On the other, there is embedded content which doesn't make sense, and stuff extracted in MS Word showing table of contents which also don't match.
Madden concluded that the text was backdated based on forensics. He considers both docs could be from an earlier source, but that wasn't provided. CSW's excuse was that there was a precursor doc, and that he shouldn't have to remember how it started, and that it likely started on pen and paper.
We have to believe he restores the original content to publish 3 years later? Gerlack gave unchallenged evidence that the doc didn't pertain to anything relevant to his class. CSW says they were just notes. It makes no sense that the notes themselves would have knowledge of the system, but the words assume the reader would be aware of bitcoin's function.
It's about Poisson Competing Process.
"we consider the scenario of an attacker trying to outrun the competing chain..."
He is clearly trying to show rounds of time and "timecoin" as predecessors to bitcoin.
You'll see comparisons of face value vs embedded text shows a large degree of similarity to the bitcoin white paper. Race between honest and attacker chains...
You'll see the line-break at "gamblers" and before "ruin" which shows the same break as the bitcoin white paper.
Edited to refer to time-rounds and such. This was done in 2005, allegedly, 3 years before the bitcoin white paper.
Let's see two docs at once. They are the same in many ways. But the authentic doc has a different due date. On page 2 of authentic doc, there are a series of questions and appear to be a real homework assignment. On the other, there is embedded content which doesn't make sense, and stuff extracted in MS Word showing table of contents which also don't match.
Madden concluded that the text was backdated based on forensics. He considers both docs could be from an earlier source, but that wasn't provided. CSW's excuse was that there was a precursor doc, and that he shouldn't have to remember how it started, and that it likely started on pen and paper.
We have to believe he restores the original content to publish 3 years later? Gerlack gave unchallenged evidence that the doc didn't pertain to anything relevant to his class. CSW says they were just notes. It makes no sense that the notes themselves would have knowledge of the system, but the words assume the reader would be aware of bitcoin's function.
Next is the code-to-flow document.
The doc here is too low res to review. The TIF is light on metadata. It was determined that it wasn't scanned.
So someone went to the trouble of converting it to a type not with metadata. Madden found a similar image online with much higher resolution from June 2008 and identical properties.
But there were characters encoded differently. The text included a copyright notice from 2015, so embedded fonts can't be older than that.
The PDF must be from 2016 or later. He searches online for the converter. CSW's PDF couldn't have been before 2016, and the low res TIFF must have been created from the PDF in 2016 or later.
CSW's explanation was that he couldn't recall how this was created, but we say it's obvious that they're the same doc with same header and footer and code structure. His attempt to say they're different conflicts with simple reality. Its face date of 2008 and 2009 Satoshi copyright are seen, but there's no evidence to account for DeMorgan employees creating such a code map. If he can recall the history, it's surprising he can't recall who did the work. He also gave a confused account in his COC schedule and myriad other problems.
[1 HOUR BREAK]
This X thread brought to you in part by the Bezel "Refer a Friend" Program. If you're in the market for a timepiece, read on.
As a lover of vintage and modern mechanical watches, I use Bezel for my purchasing needs for a few reasons
Convenience: Shop thousands of the most collectable watches on the planet from all of the top brands, all in one place.
Authenticity: Everything is sent to Bezel's in-house experts for multi-point Bezel certification before it gets shipped.
Concierge: Whether you want to source a hard to find watch or need recommendations, your private client advisor.
For a limited time, the promo code KURTWUCKERTJR will save you $200 any watch sold through Bezel.
Shop Now
shop.getbezel.com
The doc here is too low res to review. The TIF is light on metadata. It was determined that it wasn't scanned.
So someone went to the trouble of converting it to a type not with metadata. Madden found a similar image online with much higher resolution from June 2008 and identical properties.
But there were characters encoded differently. The text included a copyright notice from 2015, so embedded fonts can't be older than that.
The PDF must be from 2016 or later. He searches online for the converter. CSW's PDF couldn't have been before 2016, and the low res TIFF must have been created from the PDF in 2016 or later.
CSW's explanation was that he couldn't recall how this was created, but we say it's obvious that they're the same doc with same header and footer and code structure. His attempt to say they're different conflicts with simple reality. Its face date of 2008 and 2009 Satoshi copyright are seen, but there's no evidence to account for DeMorgan employees creating such a code map. If he can recall the history, it's surprising he can't recall who did the work. He also gave a confused account in his COC schedule and myriad other problems.
[1 HOUR BREAK]
This X thread brought to you in part by the Bezel "Refer a Friend" Program. If you're in the market for a timepiece, read on.
As a lover of vintage and modern mechanical watches, I use Bezel for my purchasing needs for a few reasons
Convenience: Shop thousands of the most collectable watches on the planet from all of the top brands, all in one place.
Authenticity: Everything is sent to Bezel's in-house experts for multi-point Bezel certification before it gets shipped.
Concierge: Whether you want to source a hard to find watch or need recommendations, your private client advisor.
For a limited time, the promo code KURTWUCKERTJR will save you $200 any watch sold through Bezel.
Shop Now
shop.getbezel.com
Tips appreciated via @handcashapp at $kurt
If you would prefer to tip in fiat, my Amazon wish is a great option. Thank you for your support!
amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls…
If you would prefer to tip in fiat, my Amazon wish is a great option. Thank you for your support!
amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls…
BACK!
As you know, CSW claims to have found the BDO and Samsung drive in a drawer at home. He says some had Alix Partners stickers on them, but some didn't and he presumed they were not imaged.
He said he didn't check them other than to see if they were working.
Alix partners was asked, and CSW also said stickers may have been removed by his son. This is a conflict from his own testimony.
We would assume a sterile BDO drive would be useful to his case, and also quite convenient that they showed up just weeks after Madden's first report.
But we were told it was a sterile, encrypted drive that he had not accessed or edited it in any way. But the expert analysis proved the contrary.
We see things in the trash bin, clock manipulation, files modified in file tables... It shows the last time the hard drive was connected to the computer.
We see creation dates post-dating their modification dates and metadata on the NT file system with object IDs that don't match.
We also have documents that show which edits had been performed among versions that occur on multiple disks.
None of Madden's analysis was contradicted by Lynch, and Madden was able to create a timeline. We see the the date is rolled back, the drive is attached, clock changed, and then detached, etc...
[Sorry, had to answer the door. Maybe 4-5 minute gap]
[Scott Weiland's British cousin laughing to himself over Hough's left shoulder...]
We see things consistent with ChatGPT copy/paste with backticks, etc...
Problems with Chrono library anomalies and such...
The BDO drive was left plugged in for some reason. It was a clear lapse of basic precautions by such an IT guru. The provenance would be closely scrutinized.
Alleged malicious actors would have hoped Madden would find their work in order to suss out their malicious insertions. Somehow, Mr Ager-Hanssen would have had to have these things ready days before CSW would have found the drive. We can't conceive how they could have had those docs in the first place.
We must also assume CAH was lucky that CSW had failed to notice CAH's alleged edits...
We have also seen the screenshots that DO NOT prove he was hacked by CAH. It is purely speculation from CSW. Shoosmiths said we didn't positively prove the hack didn't happen. We put it to CSW that it was him who falsified the BDO drive.
As you know, CSW claims to have found the BDO and Samsung drive in a drawer at home. He says some had Alix Partners stickers on them, but some didn't and he presumed they were not imaged.
He said he didn't check them other than to see if they were working.
Alix partners was asked, and CSW also said stickers may have been removed by his son. This is a conflict from his own testimony.
We would assume a sterile BDO drive would be useful to his case, and also quite convenient that they showed up just weeks after Madden's first report.
But we were told it was a sterile, encrypted drive that he had not accessed or edited it in any way. But the expert analysis proved the contrary.
We see things in the trash bin, clock manipulation, files modified in file tables... It shows the last time the hard drive was connected to the computer.
We see creation dates post-dating their modification dates and metadata on the NT file system with object IDs that don't match.
We also have documents that show which edits had been performed among versions that occur on multiple disks.
None of Madden's analysis was contradicted by Lynch, and Madden was able to create a timeline. We see the the date is rolled back, the drive is attached, clock changed, and then detached, etc...
[Sorry, had to answer the door. Maybe 4-5 minute gap]
[Scott Weiland's British cousin laughing to himself over Hough's left shoulder...]
We see things consistent with ChatGPT copy/paste with backticks, etc...
Problems with Chrono library anomalies and such...
The BDO drive was left plugged in for some reason. It was a clear lapse of basic precautions by such an IT guru. The provenance would be closely scrutinized.
Alleged malicious actors would have hoped Madden would find their work in order to suss out their malicious insertions. Somehow, Mr Ager-Hanssen would have had to have these things ready days before CSW would have found the drive. We can't conceive how they could have had those docs in the first place.
We must also assume CAH was lucky that CSW had failed to notice CAH's alleged edits...
We have also seen the screenshots that DO NOT prove he was hacked by CAH. It is purely speculation from CSW. Shoosmiths said we didn't positively prove the hack didn't happen. We put it to CSW that it was him who falsified the BDO drive.
Experts agree that the white paper wasn't written in LaTex but obviously written in OpenOffice.
There's a series of things that would not be consistent with conventional LaTex, both from Lynch and Rosendahl. It would have been theoretically possible to make a tech engine to mimic something that would have been standard in Open Office, but it would be a mammoth effort.
He admits, it's possible, but utterly improbable.
CSW describes creating the white paper in a complex workflow using both LaTex and OpenOffice - allegeing this makes his position consistent with Rosendahl's.
CSW also had no interest in Steganography as he stated. [um, CSW wrote a whole book on that...]
He says he created the white paper in OpenOffice, converting to LaTex and then PDF. He also said he used modified tech engine that would look like written in OpenOffice. they can't be consistent with one another.
He said the compiling of files to the white paper would prove he's Satoshi. Now he says none of his files will properly compile. The experts agree, it would not be difficult to reverse engineer the white paper to work from LaTex, but it would be hard to make an exact match...
Obviously, anyone can hand write a manuscript document now that looks like it was on bitcoin R&D from before the white paper, unless you use a pad that didn't exist until 2012.
There is a stark contrast between the 21st of December reliance docs and CSW now saying he doesn't rely upon any doc as a verifiable doc based on metadata proving his claim to be Satoshi.
Anyone could produce unreliable documents after the fact, but even the docs use words that can't have existed at the time like Bitcoin Cash or discussing papers that don't exist or mention math that doesn't appear...
There's a series of things that would not be consistent with conventional LaTex, both from Lynch and Rosendahl. It would have been theoretically possible to make a tech engine to mimic something that would have been standard in Open Office, but it would be a mammoth effort.
He admits, it's possible, but utterly improbable.
CSW describes creating the white paper in a complex workflow using both LaTex and OpenOffice - allegeing this makes his position consistent with Rosendahl's.
CSW also had no interest in Steganography as he stated. [um, CSW wrote a whole book on that...]
He says he created the white paper in OpenOffice, converting to LaTex and then PDF. He also said he used modified tech engine that would look like written in OpenOffice. they can't be consistent with one another.
He said the compiling of files to the white paper would prove he's Satoshi. Now he says none of his files will properly compile. The experts agree, it would not be difficult to reverse engineer the white paper to work from LaTex, but it would be hard to make an exact match...
Obviously, anyone can hand write a manuscript document now that looks like it was on bitcoin R&D from before the white paper, unless you use a pad that didn't exist until 2012.
There is a stark contrast between the 21st of December reliance docs and CSW now saying he doesn't rely upon any doc as a verifiable doc based on metadata proving his claim to be Satoshi.
Anyone could produce unreliable documents after the fact, but even the docs use words that can't have existed at the time like Bitcoin Cash or discussing papers that don't exist or mention math that doesn't appear...
There are two documents from CSW that he still supports in closing.
First is the Timecoin paper. This has clear problems. He says he lost it until it resurfaced in September 2023 when two copies appear by chance. One from Papaneema and the other from the Samsung drive. We say these are unreliable because they are forged material.
The diagrams are low quality, and the docs have words like "tripwire" bolted on in the end, but things like Pow mentioned in abstract, but omitted as line items in the document. We say it's a strange doc in many ways.
We also have an Info Defense paper of an IT security project with blockchain features allegedly submitted to Stefan in 2009. Madden addressed it and found non-default fonts, and it was created from a non-disclosed precursor, and it had very long edit time. None of these was disputed in cross.
Real Satoshi would have SOME drafts of the white paper and source code with good metadata.
CSW has to accept he has none.
He admitted he would be surprised as a forensics pro to ever see a doc from this era that doesn't have irregularities - while also admitting there is a publicly available sterile copy.
We would expect some unpublished emails or some evidence that he controlled Vistomal or GMX accounts. But he also claims employees could spoof his emails at the same time. and if his email in 2014 about Dave was real, then he DID have at least some access to old emails, didn't he?
He also says he shared drafts to many people via email, but has no copies and no proof. In the case of Bridges, we have about 100 docs of sharing papers from early 2010, but none about bitcoin or timecoin. Nothing in his extensive academics about blockchain, bitcoin or timecoin either...
There's the Microsoft comms too. He talks about many things. As part of the process, he claims he was actively pitching bitcoin to Microsoft, but no evidence of that either. The blog posts in 2014, backdated, show little more than him returning to IT security work.
We don't see any evidence of his work on bitcoin, timecoin or anything else.
the real Satoshi would have some evidence of access to emails. We have been given nothing but forgeries.
We also have the videos which show him allegedly accessing Vistomail in 2019, ignoring inconsistencies with his own testimonies, are clearly faked with no visibility of the URL or live browsing and CSW writing off criticisms of the clearly bad footer.
First is the Timecoin paper. This has clear problems. He says he lost it until it resurfaced in September 2023 when two copies appear by chance. One from Papaneema and the other from the Samsung drive. We say these are unreliable because they are forged material.
The diagrams are low quality, and the docs have words like "tripwire" bolted on in the end, but things like Pow mentioned in abstract, but omitted as line items in the document. We say it's a strange doc in many ways.
We also have an Info Defense paper of an IT security project with blockchain features allegedly submitted to Stefan in 2009. Madden addressed it and found non-default fonts, and it was created from a non-disclosed precursor, and it had very long edit time. None of these was disputed in cross.
Real Satoshi would have SOME drafts of the white paper and source code with good metadata.
CSW has to accept he has none.
He admitted he would be surprised as a forensics pro to ever see a doc from this era that doesn't have irregularities - while also admitting there is a publicly available sterile copy.
We would expect some unpublished emails or some evidence that he controlled Vistomal or GMX accounts. But he also claims employees could spoof his emails at the same time. and if his email in 2014 about Dave was real, then he DID have at least some access to old emails, didn't he?
He also says he shared drafts to many people via email, but has no copies and no proof. In the case of Bridges, we have about 100 docs of sharing papers from early 2010, but none about bitcoin or timecoin. Nothing in his extensive academics about blockchain, bitcoin or timecoin either...
There's the Microsoft comms too. He talks about many things. As part of the process, he claims he was actively pitching bitcoin to Microsoft, but no evidence of that either. The blog posts in 2014, backdated, show little more than him returning to IT security work.
We don't see any evidence of his work on bitcoin, timecoin or anything else.
the real Satoshi would have some evidence of access to emails. We have been given nothing but forgeries.
We also have the videos which show him allegedly accessing Vistomail in 2019, ignoring inconsistencies with his own testimonies, are clearly faked with no visibility of the URL or live browsing and CSW writing off criticisms of the clearly bad footer.
Break time!
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
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
Hough: there are mentions of blog posts with bitcoin mentioned, but those are also backdated...
CSW has said he could produce a small army of witnesses who can verify he's Satoshi. He says there were BDO people who received pitches, and there were colleagues from DeMorgan and elsewhere who should have been aware of his mining activities who also would have been opening and using his research papers about bitcoin. He doesn't have any of them giving evidence of any of that.
Why no witnesses from people who worked on Blacknet? Why no witnesses who allegedly received drafts of the white paper? Why no witnesses from PRNhub or Microsoft? the evidence looks like he was applying for an IT security job.
Why no testimony from Lynn Wright? She said she has no recollection of bitcoin. But CSW said she was on medication and unfit to testify. If CSW is correct, she would have written his Blacknet docs and a large number of his other research related to bitcoin. She didn't come to this court, and didn't support this claim in Kleiman.
Finally Ramona Watts sat here in court for much of the proceedings, and she could have given evidence, but she decided not to.
Turning back to recipients of bitcoin white paper drafts, he says the following received drafts: 21 individuals. 2 of 21 recall seeing a copy. Uncle Don and Stefan. But they aren't reliable. Jenkins recalled seeing a different doc and also unreliable. None other recall anything.
John Cheshire said he didn't meet CSW until 2010, Gareth Williams, deceased, had no documented connection to CSW. He tried to say he had shown some people timecoin paper from April 2009. He then said he didn't give bitcoin white paper drafts to Bridges or Jenkins which contradicts his own statements that he had.
Danielle DeMorgan, his sister, links CSW to Satoshi because he was dressing as a ninja and scaring local children. The fact that she saw lots of computers at his home is irrelevant because of his IT security work.
Bridges, who he worked with while at BDO, made clear that the only parallel he was drawing was records of transactions. He wasn't drawing a technical connection. And IT security logs keep records anyways. This is known.
Bridges' statements drew parallels, but that was a hindsight view.
Pang gave evidence of a child grooming case they worked on together and CSW tried connecting it to bitcoin even though there was no obvious connection.
As for Lego Batman conversation is clutching at straws. Why was he using a pseudonym if he was going to talk about it at the office canteen anyways?
Cerian Jones will be mentioned briefly only.
Shoab Yusuf didn't recollect bitcoin, timecoin, timestamp servers... His evidence conflicted with Wright's because CSW said he had shared a draft of the white paper with Yusuf - who didn't recall any such thing. He even said he heard about Craig being Satoshi from the news.
Max Lynam also didn't support the case. He recalled Don running code, but it was an unknown bit of code. He connected it with CSW's ethical hacking work and validating txs, but pentesting doesnt have tx validation. He also said it was commonplace for them to test each other's code. No secracy connected to this one. He only ehard about bitcoin from Craig after it was public.
He didn't get an early bitcoin paper either.
Then Mr Jenkins. His credibility was shattered when it became evident that he was primed about receiving a timecoin white paper. It had never been previously mentioned in court. Even my learned friends found it surprising. He had to admit in the course of exam that the word "timecoin" was written in front of him. He realized this was undermining and said he wrote it during his cross with a series of other words. We could all see he hadn't written anything. He contradicted himself, and it was highly suspicious that he came up with it only after Craig had belatedly come up with timecoin's existence.
My learned friends say this would be an unlikely put up job because of timing. Implying it would have been better if it was before the bitcoin white paper... It was designed to explain away people not receiving a bitcoin white paper.
On to Matthews, he couldn't have been aware Craig working on bitcoin in 2008... But we see from the WhatsApp conversation with SM trying to deny the plain meaning of the words of his frustration about CSW's faking of things. His story about trying to fob off CAH are unimpressive.
Also, his account of receiving the white paper conflicts with CSW's, and not on minor points. SM says he got a USB stick, but CSW says he brought a paper copy with a significant PS. CSW said ti was on his desk for months.
SM attempted to explain it away saying "review didn't mean read."
There's also the issues with emails from Tyche...
CSW has said he could produce a small army of witnesses who can verify he's Satoshi. He says there were BDO people who received pitches, and there were colleagues from DeMorgan and elsewhere who should have been aware of his mining activities who also would have been opening and using his research papers about bitcoin. He doesn't have any of them giving evidence of any of that.
Why no witnesses from people who worked on Blacknet? Why no witnesses who allegedly received drafts of the white paper? Why no witnesses from PRNhub or Microsoft? the evidence looks like he was applying for an IT security job.
Why no testimony from Lynn Wright? She said she has no recollection of bitcoin. But CSW said she was on medication and unfit to testify. If CSW is correct, she would have written his Blacknet docs and a large number of his other research related to bitcoin. She didn't come to this court, and didn't support this claim in Kleiman.
Finally Ramona Watts sat here in court for much of the proceedings, and she could have given evidence, but she decided not to.
Turning back to recipients of bitcoin white paper drafts, he says the following received drafts: 21 individuals. 2 of 21 recall seeing a copy. Uncle Don and Stefan. But they aren't reliable. Jenkins recalled seeing a different doc and also unreliable. None other recall anything.
John Cheshire said he didn't meet CSW until 2010, Gareth Williams, deceased, had no documented connection to CSW. He tried to say he had shown some people timecoin paper from April 2009. He then said he didn't give bitcoin white paper drafts to Bridges or Jenkins which contradicts his own statements that he had.
Danielle DeMorgan, his sister, links CSW to Satoshi because he was dressing as a ninja and scaring local children. The fact that she saw lots of computers at his home is irrelevant because of his IT security work.
Bridges, who he worked with while at BDO, made clear that the only parallel he was drawing was records of transactions. He wasn't drawing a technical connection. And IT security logs keep records anyways. This is known.
Bridges' statements drew parallels, but that was a hindsight view.
Pang gave evidence of a child grooming case they worked on together and CSW tried connecting it to bitcoin even though there was no obvious connection.
As for Lego Batman conversation is clutching at straws. Why was he using a pseudonym if he was going to talk about it at the office canteen anyways?
Cerian Jones will be mentioned briefly only.
Shoab Yusuf didn't recollect bitcoin, timecoin, timestamp servers... His evidence conflicted with Wright's because CSW said he had shared a draft of the white paper with Yusuf - who didn't recall any such thing. He even said he heard about Craig being Satoshi from the news.
Max Lynam also didn't support the case. He recalled Don running code, but it was an unknown bit of code. He connected it with CSW's ethical hacking work and validating txs, but pentesting doesnt have tx validation. He also said it was commonplace for them to test each other's code. No secracy connected to this one. He only ehard about bitcoin from Craig after it was public.
He didn't get an early bitcoin paper either.
Then Mr Jenkins. His credibility was shattered when it became evident that he was primed about receiving a timecoin white paper. It had never been previously mentioned in court. Even my learned friends found it surprising. He had to admit in the course of exam that the word "timecoin" was written in front of him. He realized this was undermining and said he wrote it during his cross with a series of other words. We could all see he hadn't written anything. He contradicted himself, and it was highly suspicious that he came up with it only after Craig had belatedly come up with timecoin's existence.
My learned friends say this would be an unlikely put up job because of timing. Implying it would have been better if it was before the bitcoin white paper... It was designed to explain away people not receiving a bitcoin white paper.
On to Matthews, he couldn't have been aware Craig working on bitcoin in 2008... But we see from the WhatsApp conversation with SM trying to deny the plain meaning of the words of his frustration about CSW's faking of things. His story about trying to fob off CAH are unimpressive.
Also, his account of receiving the white paper conflicts with CSW's, and not on minor points. SM says he got a USB stick, but CSW says he brought a paper copy with a significant PS. CSW said ti was on his desk for months.
SM attempted to explain it away saying "review didn't mean read."
There's also the issues with emails from Tyche...
Then with O'Hagan on the Satoshi Affair. SM said he received a white paper and read it promptly, but it conflicted with his testimony in court that he didn't read it for some time.
We also say his credibility about how he dated the paper from Your Lordship's own questions. He said the white paper itself was known to be published in late 2008, but it was not obvious that it would have been well known at the time. he uses as an anchor point, the release of the bitcoin white paper.
His own evidence was that he was uninterested in the white paper in the first place, but then wants us to believe he would have been aware of its public release?
Then the issues with when they told McGregor about Satoshi claims and also claims that are at odds with other testimony. CSW said Stefan knew about bitcoin connection from 2009 - not 2008.
Then an alleged conversation with Dave K and G Williams - who were the only people who knew he was Satoshi (in 2011), this is inconsistent with Stefan knowing CSW would have been Satoshi.
There's also the assertion the Don Lynam got a draft but was unable to edit because it was over his head. That's why it's crucial that two dead men, Williams and Kleiman were the only people who "knew definitively"
We also say his credibility about how he dated the paper from Your Lordship's own questions. He said the white paper itself was known to be published in late 2008, but it was not obvious that it would have been well known at the time. he uses as an anchor point, the release of the bitcoin white paper.
His own evidence was that he was uninterested in the white paper in the first place, but then wants us to believe he would have been aware of its public release?
Then the issues with when they told McGregor about Satoshi claims and also claims that are at odds with other testimony. CSW said Stefan knew about bitcoin connection from 2009 - not 2008.
Then an alleged conversation with Dave K and G Williams - who were the only people who knew he was Satoshi (in 2011), this is inconsistent with Stefan knowing CSW would have been Satoshi.
There's also the assertion the Don Lynam got a draft but was unable to edit because it was over his head. That's why it's crucial that two dead men, Williams and Kleiman were the only people who "knew definitively"
There's also the lack of crypto proof and the Sartre blog.
He could just have proven it very simply.
CSW set out his position that the Sartre post was meant as a lesson, not a proof. He used the example of Sartre to reflect his principled beliefs that it wasn't intended to provide proof.
Mellor: He's trying to get his excuse in early?
Hough: Certainly in the witness statement.
First of all, it's the excuse that he wrote a blog proof that wasn't proof at all, but then also the released version was different than intended. The reason for the 2nd excuse is because of all the emails where he says the wrong copy was uploaded.
There are a number of problems with all of this.
Everyone was expecting a genuine signature, and all were devastated when it didn't happen. Ayre, Matthews, Andresen, Matonis AND McGregor...
He didn't say he took a principled position in private. He said the wrong doc was uploaded. He said he would provide real crypto proof shortly. He said these weren't his emails from his nCrypt address. He distanced himself and said an imposter took over his email. Matthews also recalled that they were from Wright and that it would have been an extraordinary event.
Plus, none of the emails was ever disowned before. The reality is they are genuine emails and inconsistent with his position now that he was a principled objector to giving a crypto signature.
Neither did the prior draft have any indication that the failure of the post was due to anything but not having the ability.
He could just have proven it very simply.
CSW set out his position that the Sartre post was meant as a lesson, not a proof. He used the example of Sartre to reflect his principled beliefs that it wasn't intended to provide proof.
Mellor: He's trying to get his excuse in early?
Hough: Certainly in the witness statement.
First of all, it's the excuse that he wrote a blog proof that wasn't proof at all, but then also the released version was different than intended. The reason for the 2nd excuse is because of all the emails where he says the wrong copy was uploaded.
There are a number of problems with all of this.
Everyone was expecting a genuine signature, and all were devastated when it didn't happen. Ayre, Matthews, Andresen, Matonis AND McGregor...
He didn't say he took a principled position in private. He said the wrong doc was uploaded. He said he would provide real crypto proof shortly. He said these weren't his emails from his nCrypt address. He distanced himself and said an imposter took over his email. Matthews also recalled that they were from Wright and that it would have been an extraordinary event.
Plus, none of the emails was ever disowned before. The reality is they are genuine emails and inconsistent with his position now that he was a principled objector to giving a crypto signature.
Neither did the prior draft have any indication that the failure of the post was due to anything but not having the ability.
What followed the Sartre problems is even more telling. Wright was repeatedly pressed to provide some kind of proof from McGregor, Matonis, Andresen... CSW tried to fob them off with an article about the Genesis block.
Ultimately, it became clear that his excuses and assembling key slices and such were all just attempts to wipe it away. He said he would look for private emails with Hal Finney, but rebuffed offers later. And he'd get PGP keys, but couldn't... These are all indicative of someone who COULD NOT get proof rather than someone who was trying to find.
Mellor: Is this all in the agreed trial bundle?
Hough: Yes, I believe so.
Mellor: We will resume tomorrow.
***AD***
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
Ultimately, it became clear that his excuses and assembling key slices and such were all just attempts to wipe it away. He said he would look for private emails with Hal Finney, but rebuffed offers later. And he'd get PGP keys, but couldn't... These are all indicative of someone who COULD NOT get proof rather than someone who was trying to find.
Mellor: Is this all in the agreed trial bundle?
Hough: Yes, I believe so.
Mellor: We will resume tomorrow.
***AD***
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
Here's my daily summary video for premium subscribers on X!
In order to watch, you need to subscribe on my home page @kurtwuckertjr for $2.99/month.
In order to watch, you need to subscribe on my home page @kurtwuckertjr for $2.99/month.
https://x.com/kurtwuckertjr/status/1767593256852803625?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
