Close Menu
    Donate
    Contradictions
    Satoshi

    A Sermon of Contradictions: “Satoshi’s” 11th Testament

    No Comments6 Mins Read325 Views

    Amen. Today’s proceedings at the High Court in the COPA vs. Wright trial (day 11) brought some familiar faces back to the witness stand, with David Bridges, Max Lynam, and Stefan Matthews reappearing after their testimonies in the Hodlonaut trial in Oslo in 2022. Their challenge was to maintain the consistency of their narratives under the rigorous scrutiny of cross-examination.

    David Bridges’ previous testimony involved Wright’s early work on logging systems, a connection to the term “genesis,” and a penchant for banking and technology, a narrative expected to be reiterated.

    Meanwhile, Max Lynam’s account of early Bitcoin mining and his receipt of a whitepaper from Wright, without tangible evidence to support his claims, did not offer new insights but it was crucial for maintaining the credibility of his cousin’s story.

    The spotlight, however, intensified on Stefan Matthews, nChain’s CEO and Craig Wrights’s friend since 2005 allegedly. His testimony carried the weight of previous statements that have been contested by Wright himself during this trial. The leaked audio by Christen Ager-Hanssen, hinting at a potential “train wreck” and the alleged $100 million “success fee,” added layers of drama and speculation about Matthews’ position and incentives.

    Contradiction 1 – Book Rights

    During the proceedings today, Stephan Matthews, nChain CEO and a witness in the ongoing trial presented statements that appeared to contradict his earlier testimony. This flip in narrative raised eyebrows, as it seemed to directly conflict with previous assertions he made under oath. The focal point of this contradiction was the attribution of the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous figure behind Bitcoin.

    Earlier in his testimony, Matthews had laid out a different narrative (namely that book rights were about the company’s story), but when questioned later, he affirmed that certain life story rights indeed referred to Craig S. Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto. This change in testimony introduces new complexities to the case and could have significant implications for the credibility of the evidence presented.

    Contradiction 2 – Bitcoin Whitepaper

    In today’s proceedings, significant discrepancies emerged in the testimony of Stefan Matthews, a witness closely associated with Craig Wright. Matthews claims that he previously received a document from Wright in 2008 — an early draft of the Bitcoin whitepaper. However, there seem to be conflicting accounts about this document.

    According to one narrative, the white paper lacked a name, while another asserts it included Craig Wright’s name. One version claims it was printed, while another describes a USB key. There is yet another discrepancy in the name, Timecoin, or Bitcoin? These varying recollections highlight the complexities and challenges in verifying historical claims, especially when multi-billion dollar interests are at stake. The situation is further complicated by the promise of substantial financial rewards tied to the outcomes of testimonies, which may cast doubt on the motivations behind them.

    Contradiction 3 – The Meeting

    Another pivotal moment surfaced with Stefan Matthews’ account. As a key witness, Matthews’ recollection of a 2015 meeting’s purpose starkly contradicted Craig Wright’s earlier testimony. While Wright had characterized the meeting as related to a Bitcoin transaction with Calvin Ayre, Matthews affirmed that it was strictly an investment discussion for businesses, with no mention of buying or selling Bitcoin.

    This discrepancy highlights the intricate and often conflicting narratives presented in the case, underscoring the challenge of establishing a coherent account of past events.

    Contradiction 4 – The “Mock” Trial

    At some point in the trial, Matthews veered into a tirade, labeling the ‘Mock Trial’ proceedings as an ‘ambush’ that was particularly unjust towards Craig Wright. This is about fake proceedings that nChain used to test the validity of Wright’s legal arguments before the trial commenced. However, in the picture provided by Christen Ager-Hanssen, Stefan Matthews sitting at a table with Fawn is not looking particularly displeased. According to Ager-Hanssen things took a dark turn after this mock trial was concluded as everyone realized that Craig would lose.

    Contradiction 5 – Who is in Control of nChain UK?

    A debate erupted on social media concerning the accuracy of public filings versus statements made by individuals associated with nChain UK Limited. Stefan Matthews has been brought into the spotlight over his testimony on the question of whether Calvin Ayre is the controlling shareholder of nChain UK. Despite the Companies House filing indicating Mr Ayre as the sole person with significant control, Matthews disputed this, claiming it is not correct.

    This contradiction gains more gravity when considered in the context of the COPA vs. Wright trial, where the accuracy of statements related to the control and influence within blockchain and cryptocurrency entities can be of critical importance. In court cases like these, where the stakes are high, discrepancies between what is officially recorded and what is claimed can be a source of legal contention.

    image 153

    Contradiction 6 – NOT Square Mining

    Another intriguing moment was captured involving Stefan Matthews. In what appears to be a moment of high tension, Matthews vehemently denied to Jonathan Hough KC that Craig Wright had any connection with Squire Mining, only to swiftly contradict himself by acknowledging that Wright did indeed have a holding in the company for some time.

    This slip, characterized by the community as a “double-oof” moment, is emblematic of the high-stakes and often complex relationships that exist within the world of cryptocurrency and blockchain enterprises.

    Contradiction 7 – The Email Affair

    When asked about email communications (Tyche emails) between himself and Stefan Matthews, Craig Wright disputed the emails as he claimed they were not in his control and were likely to be tampered with.

    In contrast, Stefan Matthews appeared to recognize the communications and did not dispute their authenticity in yet another stark contradiction between the two close associates.

    As the trial progresses, what remains consistent is the complexity and entangled narratives that have come to define this case, a saga far from reaching its final chapter.

    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