Read the series: Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3
In the labyrinth of legal dramas, few have captured the attention of the cryptocurrency world as intensely as the ongoing trial involving the Cryptocurrency Open Patent Alliance (COPA) and Craig Wright, the man who has claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin. Day 20 of the trial, held in a rain-drenched London, brought with it an atmosphere as grey and foreboding as the weather, setting the stage for a final testimony by Craig Wright that promised to add another layer to an already complex saga.
The day’s proceedings revolved around a contentious email sent by Wright’s wife Ramona, to Ontier LLP, an email that was later declared a forgery by Ontier and confirmed as such by Wright’s legal team. The revelation of this alleged forgery added a new twist to a trial already replete with contradictions and controversies.
Chronological Diagram by BitMEX Research
BitMEX Research created a diagram to clarify Craig Wright’s claims regarding the disputed email sent to Ontier LLP. Wright contends that on February 18th, 2024, a spoofed email bearing his MYOB login information was sent to Ontier. Concurrently, he claims to have sent an authentic email containing the same information to his wife. This move, he asserts, was to forward real content in the midst of what he perceives as a campaign to discredit him.
The complexity arises from COPA’s stance that the content Wright claims to be real was fabricated and backdated, to align with his narrative. This has led to a dispute over not just the content of the emails, but their origin and authenticity. BitMEX Research’s contribution to the conversation is crucial as it provides a visual representation of the email timeline. The diagram below outlines the sequence of the emails’ creation, forwarding, and subsequent claims by the involved parties.
Forensics expert Mr Madden was called back to the stand, alongside Wright, to delve into the intricacies of this disputed email. The courtroom buzzed with anticipation, as bets were taken on who would ultimately be blamed for this digital deceit.
The case took a technical turn when Jonathan Hough KC, representing COPA, highlighted inconsistencies in domain registrations and email timestamps that raised questions about the authenticity and timing of communications related to Tulip Trading, a company associated with Wright. The disclosure that SPF configuration information for a domain linked to Wright had been modified during the week of the trial added fuel to the fire of skepticism.
Craig Wright’s testimony was a rollercoaster of technical explanations and denials. He acknowledged the existence of the disputed email exchanges but contested their interpretation by the prosecution. Wright argued that the emails’ timestamps and configurations could have been manipulated or misinterpreted, suggesting a complex web of email spoofing and hacking that targeted him and his associates.
Forgery, Spoofing, & “Satoshi
The cross-examination by Hough was relentless, challenging Wright’s explanations and suggesting that the disputed emails were part of an attempt to backdate evidence to support Wright’s claims. Wright’s defense hinged on the technicalities of email protocols and the possibilities of spoofing, arguing that the anomalies pointed out by the prosecution could be explained by the nuances of email transmission and server configurations.
As the day progressed, the courtroom witnessed a mix of technical debates, legal interrogations, and moments of almost theatrical absurdity. Wright’s claim of widespread email spoofing and hacking led to exchanges that ranged from highly technical to bewilderingly bizarre, with Wright at one point suggesting that the ease of email spoofing was a well-known fact, trivial to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of hacking.
The trial’s atmosphere was charged with tension, punctuated by moments of levity as barristers and spectators reacted to the unfolding drama. The complexity of the case, rooted in the intricacies of digital communication and cryptocurrency lore, presented a unique challenge to all involved, blurring the lines between technical expertise and legal argumentation.
Community Reaction
The courtroom drama took a surreal turn as Craig Wright presented a labyrinthine explanation for an alleged email forgery that has become a focal point in the trial. A recent tweet from WizSec Bitcoin Research quoted Wright’s claim that his original email was lost in Ontier LLP’s spam box in 2019, leading to a series of events involving email spoofing designed to undermine his credibility. This statement prompted speculation from the cryptocurrency community, with notable figures like Hodlonaut questioning whether the judge would accept such a convoluted narrative.
Wright’s assertion paints a picture of a complex conspiracy involving his email being extracted from his mailbox, his house being bugged, and a spoofed email being sent to Ontier just in time to cast doubts on his claims in court. The timing and convenience of these alleged actions have raised eyebrows, suggesting a coordinated effort to sabotage Wright’s case.
The Twittersphere reacted swiftly, with the community polarized between skepticism and support for Wright’s latest claim. The court’s acceptance of this explanation is crucial, as it could impact the perceived authenticity of Wright’s evidence and his longstanding assertion of being Satoshi Nakamoto.
A new narrative thread has been unwoven by Arthur van Pelt, a prominent commentator and author known for his critical stance on Wright’s claim to the Satoshi Nakamoto identity. Van Pelt’s recent comments shed light on the latest contentious twist: the Ontier email, alleged to be a forgery, that has become the epicenter of controversy in the trial.
Van Pelt outlines a scenario put forth by Wright, suggesting a sophisticated hacker, whom Wright insinuated could be van Pelt himself, sent a spoofed email to Ontier LLP. Wright claims that on the same day, he innocently forwarded this very email to his wife, who then passed it on to their counsel, Shoosmiths. Ontier and COPA, however, stand firm in their assertion that the email in question is a forgery.
The irony is not lost on van Pelt, who chuckles at the thought of being cast as Wright’s “Arch Nemesis,” a role he finds amusing given his activities have simply involved publishing materials from COPA’s official Dropbox. Van Pelt’s commentary often comes with a hint of satire, and his recent tweets underscore this, as he jests about being mentioned directly to Justice Mellor in the courtroom.
Jason Deane, a Bitoiner since 2016, expresses skepticism about Craig Wright’s claims in the recent court proceedings. Deane questions the authenticity of an email supporting Wright and recent domain changes beneficial to Wright’s case. Wright’s courtroom demeanor changed from calm to agitated as he insisted the email was genuine but also possibly spoofed by someone else, leading to Deane labeling it “Schrodinger’s email.” Wright blamed his wife for the email controversy, without his approval.
Deane criticizes Wright’s long, irrelevant technical rants and highlights a moment where Wright was directly challenged to confess to email forgery but responded with a rambling denial. Justice Mellor’s questioning exposed inconsistencies in Wright’s narrative, especially regarding who might have spoofed the email, which Wright could not satisfactorily explain. Deane implies Wright is either extremely unlucky or inept at IT security.
As the day closed, the trial left yet again more questions than answers, painting a picture of a legal battle deeply entrenched in the digital age’s challenges. The saga of Craig Wright, with its mix of technical disputes, legal battles, and the enigmatic ghostlike figure of Satoshi Nakamoto, continues to fascinate and perplex, a modern-day mystery unfolding in the heart of London’s legal district.
The trial of Craig Wright versus COPA is more than just a legal dispute; it’s a narrative about identity, innovation, and the shadowy interplay of technology and law. As the world watches, the outcome of this case may have far-reaching implications for the cryptocurrency community and for Craig Wright himself who could potentially face charges of forgery, perjury and perverting the course of justice.
Author Profile
- Lucy Walker covers finance, health and beauty since 2014. She has been writing for various online publications.
Latest entries
- April 25, 2025Global EconomicsWhistleblowers Unmask Schwab’s Toxic WEF Secrets
- April 9, 2025Global EconomicsTariff Tensions Drive Market Volatility
- March 18, 2025Global EconomicsRed in Name Only: Labour’s War on the UK Working Class
- March 7, 2025SatoshiCraig Wright Banned from UK Courts with Civil Restraint Order