Close Menu
    Donate
    Forgery Factory
    Satoshi

    Forgery Factory? Week 1 of COPA vs. Craig Wright Trial

    No Comments9 Mins Read324 Views

    The first week of the COPA vs. Craig Wright trial revealed significant developments, focusing on three main aspects: attacking the credibility of experts, waiving privilege, and evasive behavior from Wright. The fourth element that has to be highlighted is the UK legal process which is inherently different than the one from the US legal system.

    Wright’s position could be significantly bolstered by moving Bitcoin from Satoshi’s wallet or presenting an unaltered document from the relevant period. However, his failure to produce such evidence raises questions. Despite claims of being a security expert, Wright’s explanations for the absence of concrete evidence range from bizarre to implausible, stretching the limits of credulity claims Jason Deane, a Bitcoiner since 2016.

    “I’m a complete ass. And none of my clients, none of my lawyers will deny that. I don’t handle people not understanding things very well. And I get frustrated. So I end up like a three-year-old who doesn’t get a lolly when I get frustrated.”

    Craig Wright

    1: Attacking the Experts

    Craig Wright’s confrontational approach towards expert testimony has been a notable aspect of the trial. Throughout the proceedings, Wright has consistently challenged the qualifications and credibility of the expert witnesses, casting doubt on their expertise and suggesting that their analyses and testimonies were unreliable. This approach included questioning the opinions of experts, including those from his legal team.

    Judge James Mellor, overseeing the case, emphasized the importance of expert testimony in court, particularly given the technical nature of the evidence. He pointed out that the court relies on the authority of independent experts, and unless their opinions are completely undermined, their views are likely to be given significant weight. Wright’s attempts to dismiss these opinions were noticed by the judge, who advised focusing on the substance of these expert opinions.

    “One of the advantages of having independent expert whitnesses is if the court agrees they have given an objective, suitably supported opinion, the court can rely on their opinions. So I suggest you focus on their opinions because at the moment, unless they are completely undermined, it’s likely I’m going to rely on them. So instead of disputing the process by which he reached these findings, I suggest you focus on the findings, ok?”

    Mr Justice Mellor (COPA vs Wright)

    2: Being Evasive

    Wright’s responses during the trial were marked by a combination of technical explanations, contradictions, and challenges to methodologies. His testimony often veered into technical details, which may have impacted the clarity and persuasiveness of his defense. Wright’s demeanor and responses in court were also noted as changing throughout the trial, adding a layer of skepticism to the proceedings.

    Wright’s legal approach is unorthodox, to say the least. His responses in court are often left unchallenged, not as a concession of victory, but as a procedural step in the legal process. This misinterpretation by Wright’s supporters is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the legal system operates. It’s not about winning individual points but building a coherent and credible overall argument.

    3: Waiving Privilege

    A critical moment occurred on Day 5, where Wright appeared to waive privilege, an act that could have serious legal implications. Privilege, especially in legal contexts, refers to the right to withhold certain information or documents from disclosure. By referencing discussions with his legal team, Wright potentially exposed sensitive strategies, allowing the opposing counsel to probe into areas that are generally off-limits.

    This was a notable moment in the trial. The legal teams are normally glued in front of their monitors or taking notes. However in this case the Bird & Bird legal team representing COPA became very animated with some smiling and others looking baffled. The overall feeling is that an own goal was scored from the Wright camp as waiving privilege can open a can of worms.

    Wright’s statements have further undermined his case. Admitting the unreliability of his documents and waiving privilege has weakened his evidential foundation. Additionally, physical evidence, such as notes on anachronistic paper, has been discredited, casting further doubt on his claims.

    Can Craig Wright Code in C++?

    A comment from Sylvester Hesp, a seasoned C++ and Rust game developer, sheds light on a crucial technical misunderstanding. Wright’s defense hinges on the use of a non-standard library, Project Chrono, but his explanation reveals a fundamental misinterpretation of C++ programming norms.

    Here’s what’s wrong with his claim:

    1. Using the Wrong Library: He mentioned using a part of C++ that’s standard (commonly used and officially recognized), but he mixed it up with Project Chrono, which is not a standard part of C++.
    2. Code Mismatch: The specific feature he talked about (related to measuring time in milliseconds) isn’t even available in Project Chrono, contradicting his claim.
    3. Incorrect Syntax: The way he said he included Project Chrono in his work doesn’t match how it’s actually done.

    This misunderstanding suggests that Wright might not be as familiar with C++ programming as he claims. This detail is important in the case because it challenges the credibility of his technical claims.

    List of Notable Contradictions

    1. Claim of Writing the Bitcoin White Paper in LaTeX: Dr. Wright claimed he wrote the Bitcoin white paper in LaTeX, and his Overleaf account contains an authentic LaTeX draft. However, both sides’ experts agreed that the original Bitcoin white paper was created in OpenOffice 2.4, not LaTeX. This discrepancy undermines Dr. Wright’s narrative about the drafting process of the white paper.
    2. Manipulation of Documents: The trial presents evidence that Dr. Wright produced a large number of false and forged documents to support his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. His own experts agree that key documents he nominated as primary reliance documents for his claim have been manipulated. This includes the BDO drive, a critical piece of evidence claimed to contain early drafts of the Bitcoin white paper and related papers. Forensic analysis revealed that the BDO image had been accessed and modified in the days leading up to September 20, 2023, suggesting manipulation to make it appear as if it was from 2007.
    3. Inconsistencies in Dr. Wright’s Story: Various aspects of Dr. Wright’s story about devising and introducing the Bitcoin system are inconsistent with established facts or reliable evidence from people with no reason to lie. For instance, the claim that Dr. Wright showed early versions of the Bitcoin white paper to multiple individuals, yet no reliable email, original soft copy, or original hard copy draft has ever been proffered to support this story.
    4. Usage of AI for Forging Documents: There are indications that Dr. Wright used AI tools like ChatGPT to create forged documents. This is evidenced by the structure and style of some documents that bear signs typical of AI-generated content.
    5. Discrepancies in Source Code and Website Control: Claims about Dr. Wright’s control over the bitcoin.org website and the Satoshi email addresses were discredited. Videos showing him accessing the Satoshi Vistamail account did not align with the website’s footer from that time, indicating they were not accessed live as claimed.
    6. The “Sartre Blog Post” Incident: In 2016, Dr Wright published a blog post intending to offer cryptographic proof of his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto, which was quickly debunked as it used a signature from the public blockchain and proved nothing.
    7. Misrepresentation of Qualifications and Background: Dr. Wright’s narrative suggests he has a background and qualifications that make him a natural fit for Satoshi Nakamoto. However, closer examination reveals discrepancies and timing issues with these qualifications.
    8. Reliance on Manipulated Emails: The trial refers to manipulated emails, including an email allegedly from 2008 that was part of Dr Wright’s communication with Dave Kleiman. Forensic analysis indicates that the email was fabricated, undermining his claims about his early involvement with Bitcoin.

    Day-by-Day Recap (with links to more details)

    • Day 1: The trial began with intense scrutiny of Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, with COPA accusing Wright of fabricating an elaborate false narrative. Wright’s defense emphasized his background and tried to underscore the significance of private signing sessions.
    • Day 2: Focused on the examination of Wright’s evidence and inconsistencies in his claims. Wright’s defense was marked by denials and justifications.
    • Day 3: Highlighted a pivotal moment with the focus shifting to minutes from a 2007 BDO meeting and Wright’s aggressive demeanor towards experts.
    • Day 4: Revolved around Wright’s defense strategies moving from blaming Citrix MetaFrame to implicating Ira Kleiman and Atlassian for alleged document forgeries.
    • Day 5: Delved into Wright’s professional background and technical contributions, with Wright seemingly waiving privilege and facing intense scrutiny over his claims and the authenticity of his documents.

    Beyond the legal and evidential aspects, Wright’s demeanor and philosophy starkly contrast with the known persona of Nakamoto according to Deane. Wright’s aggressive and confrontational approach is diametrically opposed to Nakamoto’s more reserved and principled stance, adding another layer of skepticism to his claim, says the Bitcoiner.

    Trial Schedule

    image 142 1

    The trial’s outcome is crucial not only for determining the identity of Bitcoin’s creator but also for related lawsuits where Wright seeks to assert intellectual property rights over Bitcoin. Deane humorously suggests that Wright’s story, replete with its complexities and drama, would make for an engaging film, playfully pondering potential titles and casting choices for Wright’s character.

    Author Profile

    Lucy Walker
    Lucy Walker
    Lucy Walker covers finance, health and beauty since 2014. She has been writing for various online publications.
    1
    Share.

    Related Posts

    Add A Comment
    Leave A Reply