Close Menu
    Donate
    Day 9 of COPA vs Wright trial
    Satoshi

    Blockchain LEGO, Chinese Puzzles & Timecoin – Day 9

    No Comments11 Mins Read

    Read the series: 1st Week Summary | Day 6 | Day 7 | Day 8

    Morning Session

    The ninth day of the COPA vs. Wright trial marked a significant shift from the intense cross-examinations of Craig Wright to the testimonies of his fact witnesses. The focus was on three individuals: Ignatius Pang, Shoaib Yousuf, and Robert Jenkins, each connected to Wright in different capacities and expected to provide insights into Wright’s claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin.

    Witness Profiles

    • Ignatius Pang: A bioinformatician who met Wright in 2007 and worked with him at BDO and later Hotwire PE.
    • Shoaib Yousuf: A cybersecurity specialist who encountered Wright in 2006 at Charles Sturt University. They co-founded a company to allegedly commercialize Wright’s ideas in cybersecurity.
    • Robert Jenkins: A businessman acquainted with Wright since the late nineties, with collaborations at Vodafone and ongoing discussions over the years.

    Witness Testimonies

    Ignatius Pang’s Testimony

    Ignatius Pang, a bioinformatician, highlighted his professional journey, particularly focusing on his tenure at BDO and later at Hotwire PE, where he worked closely with Craig Wright. During this period, they collaborated on several projects, one of which was a significant study on social networks and predatory behavior. Pang detailed his role and contributions to these projects, emphasizing the technical aspects and the scope of work undertaken. However, he expressed limited knowledge about certain aspects of Wright’s work, particularly those related to IT security and digital forensics. His testimony, while detailed in terms of his direct involvement, seemed to lack depth in areas peripheral to his expertise.

    Shoaib Yousuf’s Testimony

    Shoaib Yousuf, a cybersecurity specialist, recounted his early interactions with Wright at Charles Sturt University and the inception of their joint business venture. His testimony shed light on various discussions they had, spanning technical topics like digital currencies and cybersecurity. Yousuf’s insights were particularly notable in portraying the breadth of Wright’s interests and ideas in these fields. However, he also acknowledged a lack of detailed recollection of certain specific projects and conversations, potentially due to the passage of time since their collaboration.

    Robert Jenkins’ Testimony

    Robert Jenkins, a businessman, provided an extensive account of his long-standing relationship with Wright. His testimony covered various projects they worked on together and included discussions that spanned a broad range of topics from IT security, and the concept of e-gold, to the early ideas surrounding digital currencies. Jenkins’ insights were instrumental in painting a picture of Wright’s early interests and involvement in fields that would later relate to the development of Bitcoin. However, like Pang and Yousuf, Jenkins also exhibited gaps in his recollection of specific details, attributing this to the lengthy duration since these events occurred.

    Cross-Examination Analysis

    • Hough and Gunning KC Tactics: Both barristers probed the witnesses on their knowledge of Wright’s work, scrutinizing their claims and assessing the consistency of their statements. The cross-examinations particularly focused on the nature of the witnesses’ collaborations with Wright and their understanding of his involvement with Bitcoin.

    Document Examination

    • The barristers critically examined various documents and prior statements associated with the witnesses, questioning the validity and relevance of these materials in supporting Wright’s claims.
    image 152

    Afternoon Session

    The afternoon session of the COPA vs. Wright trial in the London High Court continued with Shoaib Yousuf’s testimony. Yousuf, a cybersecurity specialist, first met Craig Wright at Charles Sturt University in 2006. The two later co-founded a company, initially named [undisclosed], which was later renamed Co1n. Yousuf’s involvement in Co1n lasted about ten months before he moved on to other ventures.

    During the cross-examination, Yousuf was questioned about his recollections of discussions with Wright, covering a range of topics from technology to politics and religion. Yousuf acknowledged their futuristic conversations about digital currencies, a subject not as prevalent then as it is today. He also admitted to not knowing pioneers like David Chaum, who contributed significantly to digital cash systems.

    Yousuf’s business relationship with Wright was scrutinized, particularly their collaboration on Co1n. He clarified that his departure from Co1n was around 2011-2012, a timeline that became a focal point due to inconsistencies with his previous statements in the Hodlonaut trial. He acknowledged that Co1n was running out of money around the time he left for a job in Malaysia.

    The Australian Tax Office (ATO) documents were brought into focus, specifically mentioning Yousuf as a director in Co1n. The documents revealed discrepancies in the company’s operations during his directorship, including claims of refundable tax offsets and involvement in purported R&D activities related to Bitcoin. Yousuf denied any knowledge of these activities or the financial transactions documented by the ATO.

    Yousuf maintained that despite being a director, he was not actively involved in the day-to-day running of Co1n after moving to Malaysia. He expressed unawareness of the supercomputer allegedly associated with Co1n and mentioned in ATO records. When confronted with contradictory evidence, Yousuf could not clarify his level of involvement or awareness of the company’s operations during his directorship.

    The cross-examination raised questions about the legitimacy of the operations and claims made by Co1n, particularly regarding the supercomputer and the company’s R&D activities. Yousuf’s testimony highlighted a lack of clarity and potential discrepancies in the company’s dealings, casting doubt on the company’s claims and Wright’s narrative. The session concluded with Yousuf’s credibility as a witness and his knowledge of Co1n’s operations being seriously questioned.

    Public Disclosures, Implications & Conclusions

    image 151

    Christen Ager-Hanssen, in a recent public disclosure, has brought to light significant allegations against Craig S. Wright regarding the manipulation of evidence concerning Wright’s claim to the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. On September 20, 2023, Wright emailed Ager-Hanssen, alongside other associates including Stefan Matthews and Calvin Ayre, announcing the discovery of new hard drives he claimed were supportive of his assertion as the Bitcoin creator.

    He mentioned finding initial drafts of the Bitcoin White Paper and communications under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto dating back to 2005. Ager-Hanssen, upon reviewing the evidence at Ayre’s behest, concluded that the hard drives had been tampered with and that the evidence presented was fabricated. A detailed report about the manipulated drives was then sent to both Ayre and Matthews, undermining Wright’s claims.

    The email from Craig Wright explicitly details what he purports to be conclusive evidence substantiating his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto. He references a specific drive image from 2007 that contains initial files for the Bitcoin White Paper, early code, and tax records from 2005 to 2007, among other documents. Wright claims that these files, inclusive of four million words he wrote on Bitcoin and various foundational documents, are decisive proof of his claim, a claim so strong that he compares it to the evidence of Winston Churchill’s tenure as Prime Minister.

    This email now stands contested by Ager-Hanssen’s disclosure of the hard drive tampering. Wright’s message ends with a call for further analysis of the files and accounts to cement his assertion of being the real Satoshi Nakamoto.

    Each witness brought forward their unique perspectives, contributing to a multifaceted view of Wright’s professional endeavors and intellectual interests. While their testimonies were rich in recounting their direct experiences with Wright, they also revealed certain limitations in their knowledge or recollection of events and projects peripheral to their direct involvement.

    Community Reaction

    Self-proclaimed Taco Pleb and Bitcoin activist Hodlonaut voices his skepticism and frustration over the testimonies of Jenkins and Yousuf, who were also witnesses in his own legal battle against Craig Wright in Oslo. Hodlonaut recalls their previous stance, where both witnesses praised Wright’s computer skills but offered no concrete evidence to substantiate his claim as Bitcoin’s creator. The current trial has brought Dr. Pang to the stand, who met Wright during their time at BDO and later worked at Wright’s company, Hotwire.

    Yet, inconsistencies have arisen between Pang’s testimonial evidence in this trial compared to previous accounts, casting doubt on their reliability. Hodlonaut ridicules the notion that a discussion about a Batman Lego set could be twisted into proof of Wright’s alleged identity as Satoshi.

    image 150

    Hodlonaut’s commentary extends to Robert Jenkins, whose previous testimony he describes as “extremely weak.” Jenkins’s assertion of Wright mentioning “blockchain” in 2007 or 2008 is met with skepticism, as Hodlonaut questions why this evidence is considered more substantial than cryptographic signing. The comic relief of the situation comes when Jenkins suddenly recalls the term “timecoin” during the trial, a detail conveniently omitted in his earlier testimonies.

    Mr. Yousuf, another witness for Wright, also shows signs of discomfort under questioning. These cumulative accounts of testimonial inconsistencies and apparent memory lapses paint a picture of a trial mired in contradictions and seemingly desperate grasps at legitimacy. Hodlonaut’s account underscores the bizarre and often farcical nature of the proceedings in the quest to establish the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto.

    Bitcoin activist Arthur van Pelt offers a trenchant critique of Craig Wright’s proceedings. Van Pelt derisively counters Calvin Ayre’s tweet suggesting Wright would educate the judge on Bitcoin workings, indicating that Wright’s opportunities to influence the court’s understanding are effectively nonexistent at this stage. Instead, the trial’s focus shifts towards fact witnesses for COPA and what van Pelt anticipates as the trial’s highlight — five days of forensic expert testimony. This phase is crucial as it could unravel the factual basis of Wright’s claims, potentially undercutting his narrative about Bitcoin’s origins and his role in it.

    The testimonies of Dr. Pang and Mr. Jenkins further complicate the narrative spun by Wright. Van Pelt observes that while Pang acknowledges the possibility of Wright mentioning “blockchain” and “Satoshi Nakamoto” back in 2008, he has no physical evidence to substantiate these mentions. Moreover, Wright’s apparent misuse of Pang’s name in the Hotwire tax fraud case reveals a concerning pattern of behavior. Jenkins’ testimony similarly echoes his previous statements but introduces the contentious mention of a “TimeCoin” paper, which COPA’s lawyers dispute due to anachronisms and discrepancies with the timeline of known documents.

    Yousuf’s testimony, according to van Pelt, casts light on an alleged ATO fraud involving Wright, with Yousuf’s name being misused in claims of substantial work on non-existent supercomputers. Van Pelt’s depiction of Wright as “thoroughly evil” and harmful to Bitcoin for obscure reasons suggests a deep-seated vendetta that transcends the courtroom’s battles, with potential continuance regardless of the trial’s outcome.

    The BSV Camp

    In a defiant tone, 369bsv commends the day’s proceedings as a triumph for Craig Wright, describing the testimony of Mr Jenkins regarding the “Time Coin” white paper as a significant development. This sentiment is juxtaposed with a mocking portrayal of COPA’s legal strategy, which 369bsv sees as scrambling to salvage a case by piecing together fragments from previous losses. The commentary takes a sarcastic stab at COPA’s efforts to paint a coherent picture of malfeasance by alluding to an ATO case that Wright won and accusing COPA of twisting testimonies to suggest perjury when witnesses do not conform to their narrative.

    The day’s proceedings provided a nuanced view of Wright’s professional network and his collaborations. While the testimonies offered some support to Wright’s narrative, the rigorous cross-examinations raised questions about the depth and relevance of these associations in establishing his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto. The trial continues to unravel the complexities surrounding Wright’s claims, leaving the audience and legal experts pondering the eventual outcome.

    Author Profile

    Lucy Walker
    Lucy Walker
    Lucy Walker covers finance, health and beauty since 2014. She has been writing for various online publications.
    Share.

    Related Posts

    Add A Comment
    Leave A Reply