COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 15 of 42. 13. “Hash Based Shadowing” (Scanned Manuscript Document) {ID_004729} {PTRF/86/1} 268. The document is a page of handwritten content titled “Hash Based Shadowing” and presented as if it is precursor work to Bitcoin (i.e. work addressing a concept supposed contributing to the development of Bitcoin). By its presence in BDOPC.raw, the document purports to pre-date 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 269. This document is among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 270. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted version of this document to the disclosed version shows that this document did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. It was entirely added to BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. 271. Though this document did not exist in InfoDef09.raw, a version did which is considered to be a precursor. The precursor was named “Hash Based Shadowing.TIF” [PM46 [126- 130] H/278/44] 272. Hash Based Shadowing.TIF contains metadata with the following information [PM46 [126-128] H/278/44]: 272.1. it was created on 12 March 2018; 272.2. it was created with MS Windows Photo Viewer 10.0.14393.0, software associated with Windows 10 version 1607, which was released in August 2016; and 272.3. it was scanned with a Xerox DocuMate 5540 scanner. 273. The Xerox DocuMate 5540 model of scanner was not produced until 18 February 2015 [Sherrell 19 [12] P1/19/3]. 274. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 275. The document is in Dr Wright’s own handwriting. 276. The Xerox Documate 5540 Scanner is Dr Wright’s current scanner. It is the same scanner used by Dr Wright on 11 December 2023 to scan his own Seventh Witness Statement served in these proceedings. Dr Wright’s Seventh Witness Statement contains Dr Wright’s own signature. [Sherrell19 [16] P1/19/5] 277. The metadata relating to the Xerox Documate Scanner and other metadata was deleted when the document was converted from its apparent precursor version (TIF, a metadatalight format) to its disclosed version (bmp, a no-metadata format). 278. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 279. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 280. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 280.1. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is one of Dr Wright’s “scans of hand-written notes addressing concepts that Dr Wright developed into Bitcoin. {ID_004726} is concerned with hash chains and hash tokens, {ID_004727} is concerned with the use of hash chain / tokens in bidding systems, {ID_004728} is concerned with distributed quorum-based oracles and their application in digital cash and smart contract systems, and {ID_004729} to {ID_004731} are concerned with hash-based shadowing.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/7]. 280.2. It is said to be one of Dr Wright’s “Notes, drafts and articles produced by Dr Wright during his LLM at Northumbria University.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/7] 281. The document was not disclosed at the proper time. It was disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 282. Dr Wright claimed that the fact that Mr Madden found version of this scan on InfoDef09.raw with a created date in or after 2018 was actually just an indication that an original file from 2007 had been updated to create others. His explanation was difficult to follow and was that “the original file, which is a BMP, was updated to create the others” and that “the pixelation on this is… more pixelated that you would get on a TIFF files, so what we have is a BMP being converted into a TIFF”. He later accepted that this file ID_004729 is actually a .bmp file: {Day5/94:1} and following. 283. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 283.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 283.2. Dr Wright’s overall account of documents on the drive being planted by someone is addressed in earlier examples in this Schedule. 283.3. There is no evidence to back up Dr Wright’s claimed technical effect of how these files interact when converted from one format to the other. 283.4. The file is a .bmp file, not a .tiff file. So, Dr Wright’s excuse about it being a .tiff file does not assist him. This was a further example of Dr Wright using technical terms with the intention of confusing. 283.5. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004729 was manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 15 of 42. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 15 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 13. “Hash Based Shadowing” (Scanned Manuscript Document) {ID_004729} {PTRF/86/1} 268. The document is a page of handwritten content titled “Hash Based Shadowing” and presented as if it is precursor work to Bitcoin (i.e. work addressing a concept supposed contributing to the development of Bitcoin). By its presence in BDOPC.raw, the document purports to pre-date 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 269. This document is among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 270. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted version of this document to the disclosed version shows that this document did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. It was entirely added to BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. 271. Though this document did not exist in InfoDef09.raw, a version did which is considered to be a precursor. The precursor was named “Hash Based Shadowing.TIF” [PM46 [126- 130] H/278/44] 272. Hash Based Shadowing.TIF contains metadata with the following information [PM46 [126-128] H/278/44]: 272.1. it was created on 12 March 2018; 272.2. it was created with MS Windows Photo Viewer 10.0.14393.0, software associated with Windows 10 version 1607, which was released in August 2016; and 272.3. it was scanned with a Xerox DocuMate 5540 scanner. 273. The Xerox DocuMate 5540 model of scanner was not produced until 18 February 2015 [Sherrell 19 [12] P1/19/3]. 274. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 275. The document is in Dr Wright’s own handwriting. 276. The Xerox Documate 5540 Scanner is Dr Wright’s current scanner. It is the same scanner used by Dr Wright on 11 December 2023 to scan his own Seventh Witness Statement served in these proceedings. Dr Wright’s Seventh Witness Statement contains Dr Wright’s own signature. [Sherrell19 [16] P1/19/5] 277. The metadata relating to the Xerox Documate Scanner and other metadata was deleted when the document was converted from its apparent precursor version (TIF, a metadatalight format) to its disclosed version (bmp, a no-metadata format). 278. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 279. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 280. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 280.1. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is one of Dr Wright’s “scans of hand-written notes addressing concepts that Dr Wright developed into Bitcoin. {ID_004726} is concerned with hash chains and hash tokens, {ID_004727} is concerned with the use of hash chain / tokens in bidding systems, {ID_004728} is concerned with distributed quorum-based oracles and their application in digital cash and smart contract systems, and {ID_004729} to {ID_004731} are concerned with hash-based shadowing.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/7]. “scans of hand-written notes addressing concepts that Dr Wright developed into Bitcoin. {ID_004726} is concerned with hash chains and hash tokens, {ID_004727} is concerned with the use of hash chain / tokens in bidding systems, {ID_004728} is concerned with distributed quorum-based oracles and their application in digital cash and smart contract systems, and {ID_004729} to {ID_004731} are concerned with hash-based shadowing.” 280.2. It is said to be one of Dr Wright’s “Notes, drafts and articles produced by Dr Wright during his LLM at Northumbria University.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/7] “Notes, drafts and articles produced by Dr Wright during his LLM at Northumbria University.” 281. The document was not disclosed at the proper time. It was disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 282. Dr Wright claimed that the fact that Mr Madden found version of this scan on InfoDef09.raw with a created date in or after 2018 was actually just an indication that an original file from 2007 had been updated to create others. His explanation was difficult to follow and was that “the original file, which is a BMP, was updated to create the others” and that “the pixelation on this is… more pixelated that you would get on a TIFF files, so what we have is a BMP being converted into a TIFF”. He later accepted that this file ID_004729 is actually a .bmp file: {Day5/94:1} and following. 283. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 283.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 283.2. Dr Wright’s overall account of documents on the drive being planted by someone is addressed in earlier examples in this Schedule. 283.3. There is no evidence to back up Dr Wright’s claimed technical effect of how these files interact when converted from one format to the other. 283.4. The file is a .bmp file, not a .tiff file. So, Dr Wright’s excuse about it being a .tiff file does not assist him. This was a further example of Dr Wright using technical terms with the intention of confusing. 283.5. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004729 was manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

Was Dr. Wright’s Bitcoin ‘Precursor’ Just a Modern-Day Prank?

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

COPA Sues Craig Wright for Pretending to be Bitcoin founder, Satoshi Nakamoto

Did Craig Wright Fake His Supposed Bitcoin Meeting Notes?

How Craig Wright Wrote Himself into a Forgery Charge

Forensic Findings Undermine Craig Wright’s Claim to Be the Real Satoshi Nakamoto

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

COPA Sues Craig Wright for Pretending to be Bitcoin founder, Satoshi Nakamoto

Did Craig Wright Fake His Supposed Bitcoin Meeting Notes?

How Craig Wright Wrote Himself into a Forgery Charge

Forensic Findings Undermine Craig Wright’s Claim to Be the Real Satoshi Nakamoto

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps