Close Menu
    Donate
    The IT Security Guy
    Satoshi

    IT Guy on Trial Leaves More Questions Than Answers – Day 8

    No Comments14 Mins Read169 Views

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

    Morning Session

    In the high-stakes drama of the London High Court, the case of COPA vs. Craig Wright unfolded with a kind of intensity typically reserved for blockbuster thrillers. Wright, claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, found himself entangled in a complex web of legal challenges as he faced off against the cryptocurrency establishment represented by COPA. The day promised to be a significant one, as it was slated to be Wright’s final day in the witness box, except for an additional round owing to new evidence admitted on the first day of the trial.

    Jonathan Hough KC, representing COPA, continued his meticulous cross-examination, probing the authenticity of various documents and emails linked to Wright. The central question of Wright’s involvement with the domain tyche.co.uk and the emails emanating from it in 2015 was put under the microscope. Wright’s denial of authorship of certain emails led to Hough presenting an implementation deal document signed by Wright, his wife, and Matthews. The signature’s authenticity was disputed by Wright, who claimed, “Plenty of fakes of my signature, that’s definitely one of them.”

    Hough’s strategy seemed to pivot on showcasing discrepancies in Wright’s claims, particularly highlighting the employment contract bearing Wright’s signature, which Wright asserted he did not sign. The barrister meticulously sifted through the details, questioning the reliability of numerous documents and emails disclosed by Wright’s team, which Wright labeled as emanating from “an unauthorized source.”

    The Satoshi Claim Under Scrutiny

    The cross-examination turned to the aftermath of the so-called “Sartre message,” with Hough presenting evidence that suggested Wright was supposed to demonstrate control over block 9, a claim Wright vehemently denied. The articles in question, published by BBC, The Economist, and GQ, were met with Wright’s assertion that he was traveling at the time and had not read them. His knowledge of subsequent posts discrediting the articles was also called into question.

    As COPA’s barrister pressed on, Wright’s recollection of events remained hazy, and he admitted that his recall of the period was not particularly good. The topic of the employment at nCrypt, as opposed to Tyche, was another area of contention, with Wright asserting all evidence of employment pointed to nCrypt or nChain, and not Tyche, which ran HR functions for nCrypt. Wright’s narrative painted a picture of being coerced into signing documents without proper legal advice, underlined by a claim of an attempted suicide and being tricked into actions he did not believe in.

    The session then ventured into the technicalities of the blockchain and Bitcoin’s early operational questions, with Hough scrutinizing Wright’s claimed actions and intentions behind the destruction of certain hard drives containing private keys. Here, Wright’s explanations appeared to shift, and Hough highlighted the inconsistencies between his current statements and previous testimony.

    The proceedings not only delved into the past actions and disputed emails but also touched upon Wright’s current legal actions asserting copyright over the Bitcoin whitepaper and his social media activities, which included threatening Bitcoin developers with bankruptcy. Wright deflected, pointing fingers at others as being involved in criminal activities while denying any direct threats or involvement in the same.

    As the morning session drew to a close, the narrative that emerged was one of a man whose claims and actions were under intense scrutiny, leaving the court and observers to sift through layers of complex technical evidence and conflicting testimonies. The coming days promised to further unravel the tale of Wright’s claim to the Nakamoto throne, a saga as complex and intricate as the cryptocurrency he claims to have created.

    The Afternoon Cross-Examination: Wright’s Testimony Continues

    The London High Court reconvened after lunch to continue the cross-examination of Craig Wright, the man who claims to be the enigmatic creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto. Wright’s testimony has been a focal point of the case between the Cryptocurrency Open Patent Alliance (COPA) and himself. Jonathan Hough KC, representing COPA, delved deeper into the claims that have entangled Wright in a web of legal and technical complexities.

    The afternoon session kicked off with Hough questioning Wright about his previous statement regarding the number of people aware of his supposed alter ego, Satoshi. Wright maintained that 300-400 people in Australia knew he was Satoshi, a figure that COPA’s barrister appeared to challenge. The discourse soon shifted to the witnesses—or the lack thereof—supporting Wright’s claims about the Bitcoin whitepaper.

    Technical Discrepancies & Witness Absence

    The technicalities of Bitcoin’s operation were discussed, with Wright being interrogated on the specifics of the blockchain’s early functionality. The examination highlighted the absence of several key individuals who could corroborate Wright’s narrative. With some cited as being in poor health and others fearful due to alleged threats, the court heard a story of evidence shrouded in both mystery and absence.

    As Hough pressed on, Wright’s stance on what constitutes proof of identity in the cryptographic sphere became evident. The court heard a passionate explanation from Wright, who emphasized the impossibility of cryptographic proof of identity, even going as far as calling it “hearsay.” This statement stood in stark contrast to the generally accepted principles of digital identity verification within the cryptocurrency community.

    Patent Claims & Future Litigation

    The discussion pivoted to Wright’s intentions should the court rule against his claim of being Satoshi. Asserting that he would not need to be recognized as Satoshi to pursue intellectual property claims, Wright indicated a future focused on patent litigation. He implied a willingness to target the very foundations of the Bitcoin protocol should he lose the case, highlighting the extent of his legal and technological reach.

    Wright’s testimony was not without its dramatic moments. At one point, under intense questioning from Hough, Wright expressed that he didn’t want to be recognized as Satoshi. Instead, he wished to continue his work as an inventor, citing ongoing academic pursuits and a drive to reach 10,000 patents.

    The session concluded with the court left to ponder the veracity of Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Wright’s departure from the witness box marked the end of an intense and highly technical examination that left as many questions as answers about the true origins of Bitcoin and the man who claims to have created it.

    Community Reaction

    Commentary from Arthur van Pelt paints a vivid picture of a courtroom drama on Day 8 of the COPA vs. Craig Wright trial, noting the formidable presence of Jonathan Hough KC. As Wright faced a barrage of his own past correspondence, including emails allegedly from his wife, he dismissed each in turn, leaving onlookers like van Pelt in disbelief. The tension rose palpably as Wright, against the ropes, denied association with a series of digital paper trails.

    The proceedings took an unexpected turn into the technical weeds over the original PGP key associated with Satoshi Nakamoto. Wright’s flat denial that this key was used for signing, despite being presented with a signed email from Satoshi, left the courtroom astonished. This moment was not lost on observers, with van Pelt underscoring the gravity of Wright’s inability to acknowledge the key’s authenticity.

    The scene described by van Pelt suggests Judge Mellor had to repeatedly interject to steer Wright away from tangential rants, with Hough KC pointedly curtailing his digressions. These interruptions, which have seemingly become a motif of the trial, signal a contentious battle over the narrative between Wright and the legal representatives of the Bitcoin developers.

    Van Pelt observes a notable change in Wright’s demeanor, evolving from defiance to a more subdued acceptance of the “lessons being learned.” This shift, as van Pelt implies, could be a strategic realignment or an unspoken acknowledgment of the trial’s weight on Wright.

    In a revealing moment, Wright’s understanding of a fundamental coding term was brought into question. Van Pelt highlights the irony of Wright, who claims to have written the original Bitcoin code, not knowing what an ‘unsigned integer’ is, a term reportedly used over 500 times in the Bitcoin codebase.

    Hodlonaut’s account of the trial’s start suggests a turbulent opening, with Craig Wright renouncing prior claims, repudiating blogs, and disavowing contracts, signature notwithstanding. Hodlonaut highlights Wright’s inconsistency, particularly his declaration that the very documents he selected to underpin his narrative are unreliable. Such a “strong start” seems laced with sarcasm, hinting at a self-sabotaging testimony.

    The trial anticipates testimony from Marti and others whom Wright allegedly fabricated tales about. Hodlonaut expresses skepticism, pointing to a pattern of Wright blaming various individuals and “unprecedented phenomenons” for the contradictions surfacing against his evolving account.

    The involvement of Calvin Ayre, a known supporter of Wright, was underscored in the courtroom by COPA, with Hodlonaut claiming to possess “hundreds of receipts” of active participation in Wright’s campaign against detractors, aiming to intimidate and set a legal precedent. Wright found himself outmaneuvered on technical knowledge of Bitcoin’s code by the developers’ barrister, a moment Hodlonaut relishes as “absolutely delicious.” Wright’s defense crumbled to a mere admission of forgetfulness due to the passage of time.

    A telling exchange over GitHub left Wright’s familiarity with the platform in doubt, despite its use by BSV, the blockchain project he champions. His deflection to his team’s responsibility was met with disbelief and amusement by Hodlonaut. Judge Mellor’s direct questioning exposed Wright’s tendency to weave elaborate justifications more suited for sympathetic audiences than a legal tribunal. Hodlonaut’s commentary paints a grim picture of Wright’s performance, suggesting he grossly underestimated the courtroom’s discernment.

    The judge’s parting words, as interpreted by Hodlonaut, carry an undertone of finality, perhaps an omen of Wright’s credibility crumbling under the weight of his own testimony. The use of a skull emoji underscores the perceived fatality of Wright’s case in the court of public opinion.

    Shadders, a former BSV developer, cast a critical eye on the private signing sessions that were pivotal to Craig Wright’s claim to being Satoshi Nakamoto. Dissecting the process, Shadders explains how the alleged evidence from these sessions falls short of credible proof, given the ease with which the sessions could be manipulated. He remarks on the simplicity of altering Bitcoin wallet software like ElectrumSV to create a fraudulent signing session.

    Shadders leverages his technical background to describe how modifying Electrum’s code could be accomplished swiftly and discreetly, suggesting that the integrity of the signing sessions is dubious, particularly when done on Wright’s own equipment. Highlighting Gavin Andresen’s insistence on a new laptop for the signing session, Shadders reveals a crucial detail from Andresen’s deposition: Wright had unsupervised access to the laptop during setup. This fact alone, Shadders posits, could cast a shadow over the authenticity of the session since it would have been easy for Wright to install modified software undetected.

    Shadders points to the refusal to release copies of the signatures for independent verification as a glaring omission in the process. He questions the rationale behind this secrecy, implying that it could indicate knowledge of the signatures’ inability to withstand scrutiny. The commentary then shifts to the implications of a public signing. Shadders puzzles over Wright’s professed fear of government retribution if he provided proof of being Satoshi, while simultaneously planning a public demonstration of the same. The inconsistency, Shadders suggests, might indicate that Wright never intended to complete such a public demonstration.

    Reflecting on his own refusal to participate in a private signing in 2019, Shadders shares that beyond his stated reasons, he was aware even then that a session on Wright’s laptop would be “worthless theatre.” He emphasizes that any future participation on his part would not replicate the oversights of previous sessions, ensuring no room for doubt, a standard that ultimately led to the topic being dropped in communications with him.

    Shadders concludes with a key point: the authenticity of a signing is not just about the action itself but also the environment in which verification occurs. If the equipment used for verification is under the control of the claimant, the results cannot be trusted. This principle, Shadders notes, underpinned his approach to the issue and should be a standard for any genuine attempt to prove cryptographic identity.

    The statement from COPA delivers a critical assessment of Wright’s performance in court, particularly focusing on his apparent lack of understanding of fundamental programming concepts. By highlighting the specific example of Wright’s inability to explain what an “unsigned” C++ variable is, COPA underscores a discrepancy between Wright’s claimed expertise as the creator of Bitcoin and his demonstrated technical knowledge during testimony.

    The term “unsigned” in C++ is indeed a basic concept that refers to a type of variable which can only represent non-negative numbers. It’s a foundational aspect of programming languages that deal with variable types, and as COPA suggests, it’s typically taught early in programming education.

    COPA’s use of the term “lowlight” suggests that this moment stood out negatively against the backdrop of the day’s proceedings. The implication is that someone who genuinely was involved in the creation of a complex cryptographic system like Bitcoin would easily grasp and explain such elementary concepts. The failure to do so potentially casts doubt on Wright’s claims of being Satoshi Nakamoto, who would presumably possess extensive knowledge of cryptography and programming.

    This statement is likely intended to convey skepticism about Wright’s assertions regarding his identity as Satoshi and to question the credibility of his technical testimony in the eyes of the public and possibly the court.

    The BSV Camp

    Calvin Ayre‘s tweet positions Craig Wright as having withstood seven days of intense scrutiny and challenges in court with resilience. Ayre underscores his belief in Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, suggesting that the trial’s outcome will not alter this assertion.

    Ayre hints at optimism for the forthcoming proceedings, indicating that additional evidence will substantiate Wright’s claims. He further suggests that Wright’s contributions to the field of cryptocurrency could have a significant positive impact on society if acknowledged and utilized without the hindrance of organizations like COPA, which he implies are obstructing progress.

    From Ayre’s perspective, the trial is not just about the legal determination of Wright’s identity but also about the broader potential benefits of Wright’s “inventions” to humanity. This statement can be seen as rallying support for Wright while critiquing the opposition for what Ayre perceives as an impediment to innovation.

    image 150

    Tomorrow’s session promises to bring new testimonies via video link as the case continues to unfold in a saga that combines the complexities of law, technology, and identity.

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

    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