Aucust believe and rethink in the future custom culture and by our platform Aucust Studio you could able to design, create \u0026 build your custom car from simple to complex customization

Aucust

aucust

Two super middleweight sluggers are set to meet in the can’t-miss fistic blockbuster of the summer season.

Christian Mbilli-Sergiy Derevyanchenko to Clash August 17 - Boxing News

Parking at Austin&#x27;s airport will operate on a &quot;first-come, first-served basis&quot; now through mid-August.

Austin airport pausing parking reservations through mid-August | KXAN Austin

A heavyweight meeting between two Dana White’s Contender Series competitors has been added to a UFC Fight Night event set to go down at the Ultimate Fighting Championship Apex in Las Vegas on Aug. 10.

Heavyweights Karl Williams, Jhonata Diniz Booked for August UFC Fight Night Event

It&#x27;s the return of the fan-favorite feature, Judging Books By Their Covers, where we take a look at our favorite covers from Marvel&#x27;s August solicits

Judging (Marvel's August 2024) Books By Their Covers

SINGAPORE, Singapore, July 26th, 2024/Chainwire/--Recently, the "2024 GIPR2" voting event Dapp of MEET48, a metaverse virtual community based on an AI and WEB3.0 diversified UGC entertainment content ecosystem, has rapidly risen in the rankings on DappBay and DappRadar, attracting widespread attention. The MEET48 "2024 GIPR2" voting event (https://gipr.meet48.xyz/#/gipr) is divided into the Idol Group, Sprout Group, and Virtual Idol Group. Users can log into the MEET48 official website and app, complete tasks and watch contestant videos to earn points, mint NFTs, and use points to buy voting tickets to vote for idols. The final voting rankings will determine the metaverse and overseas offline performance resources that participants will receive. Users who participate in voting interactions will also be whitelisted for future airdrop eligibility. As of 12PM on July 26, 2024, the MEET48 event Dapp has become the number one social category Dapp on DappBay and ranked fifth in the social category on DappRadar. According to DappRadar data, MEET48's event Dapp recorded 25.25 million on-chain transactions in the past 30 days, with 669.98K active user addresses (UAW). In DappBay's statistics, MEET48's event Dapp also performed excellently, with 25.62 million on-chain transactions and 647K users in the past 30 days. Currently, the MEET48 "2024 GIPR2" voting event Dapp has over 3 million registered users, and the total accumulated votes in the event have exceeded 10 million. These users, who joined through the airdrop, will eventually be integrated into MEET48's intelligent social metaverse community through the MEET48 content ecosystem matrix products. With the final results of the "2024 GIPR2" voting airdrop event set to be announced on August 3rd, MEET48's popularity is expected to continue rising. For those who have not yet participated, there is still an opportunity to complete tasks and earn points to join the airdrop event: https://gipr.meet48.xyz/#/gipr. About MEET48 MEET48 currently boasts a technical and R&D team of 500 people, covering regional operations in Singapore, Hong Kong, Taipei, Tokyo, Seoul, and Dubai. This makes it one of the largest Web3 application project teams globally. MEET48 aims to achieve the mass adoption of Web3 technology by focusing on an AI UGC content ecosystem centered on AIGC (Animation, IDOL, GAME, and Comics) Gen Z trend entertainment content and a graphical, intelligent metaverse social base. For more information users can visit MEET48's: Official Website | Twitter (X) | Telegram | Discord Contact Marketing Director Siyu Yang MEET48 siyu@meet48.com This story was distributed as a release by Chainwire under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program. Learn more about the program here. SINGAPORE, Singapore, July 26th, 2024/Chainwire/--Recently, the "2024 GIPR2" voting event Dapp of MEET48, a metaverse virtual community based on an AI and WEB3.0 diversified UGC entertainment content ecosystem, has rapidly risen in the rankings on DappBay and DappRadar, attracting widespread attention. The MEET48 "2024 GIPR2" voting event ( https://gipr.meet48.xyz/#/gipr ) is divided into the Idol Group, Sprout Group, and Virtual Idol Group. Users can log into the MEET48 official website and app, complete tasks and watch contestant videos to earn points, mint NFTs, and use points to buy voting tickets to vote for idols. https://gipr.meet48.xyz/#/gipr https://gipr.meet48.xyz/#/gipr The final voting rankings will determine the metaverse and overseas offline performance resources that participants will receive. Users who participate in voting interactions will also be whitelisted for future airdrop eligibility. As of 12PM on July 26, 2024, the MEET48 event Dapp has become the number one social category Dapp on DappBay and ranked fifth in the social category on DappRadar. According to DappRadar data, MEET48's event Dapp recorded 25.25 million on-chain transactions in the past 30 days, with 669.98K active user addresses (UAW). In DappBay's statistics, MEET48's event Dapp also performed excellently, with 25.62 million on-chain transactions and 647K users in the past 30 days. Currently, the MEET48 "2024 GIPR2" voting event Dapp has over 3 million registered users, and the total accumulated votes in the event have exceeded 10 million. These users, who joined through the airdrop, will eventually be integrated into MEET48's intelligent social metaverse community through the MEET48 content ecosystem matrix products. With the final results of the "2024 GIPR2" voting airdrop event set to be announced on August 3rd, MEET48's popularity is expected to continue rising. For those who have not yet participated, there is still an opportunity to complete tasks and earn points to join the airdrop event: https://gipr.meet48.xyz/#/gipr . https://gipr.meet48.xyz/#/gipr https://gipr.meet48.xyz/#/gipr About MEET48 MEET48 currently boasts a technical and R&D team of 500 people, covering regional operations in Singapore, Hong Kong, Taipei, Tokyo, Seoul, and Dubai. This makes it one of the largest Web3 application project teams globally. MEET48 MEET48 MEET48 aims to achieve the mass adoption of Web3 technology by focusing on an AI UGC content ecosystem centered on AIGC (Animation, IDOL, GAME, and Comics) Gen Z trend entertainment content and a graphical, intelligent metaverse social base. For more information users can visit MEET48's: Official Website | Twitter (X) | Telegram | Discord Official Website Official Website Twitter (X) Twitter (X) Telegram Telegram Discord Discord Contact Marketing Director Siyu Yang MEET48 siyu@meet48.com This story was distributed as a release by Chainwire under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program. Learn more about the program here. This story was distributed as a release by Chainwire under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program. Learn more about the program here . here here

MEET48 "2024 GIPR2" Voting Event Final Results On August 3rd, Ranking Top On DappBay And DappRadar

MEET48 "2024 GIPR2" ভোটিং ইভেন্টের চূড়ান্ত ফলাফল ৩রা আগস্ট, DappBay এবং DappRadar-এ শীর্ষস্থানীয়

Endergebnisse der Abstimmungsveranstaltung „2024 GIPR2“ von MEET48 am 3. August, Spitzenplätze bei DappBay und DappRadar

Resultados finales del evento de votación MEET48 "2024 GIPR2" el 3 de agosto, ocupando el primer lugar en DappBay y DappRadar

Résultats finaux de l'événement de vote MEET48 "2024 GIPR2" le 3 août, en tête du classement sur DappBay et DappRadar

MEET48 "2024 GIPR2" वोटिंग इवेंट के अंतिम परिणाम 3 अगस्त को, DappBay और DappRadar पर शीर्ष रैंकिंग

MEET48「2024 GIPR2」投票イベント最終結果8月3日発表、DappBayとDappRadarでトップに

MEET48 '2024 GIPR2' 8월 3일 투표 이벤트 최종 결과, DappBay 및 DappRadar 1위 차지

Resultados finais do evento de votação MEET48 "2024 GIPR2" em 3 de agosto, classificado em primeiro lugar no DappBay e no DappRadar

Окончательные результаты голосования MEET48 «2024 GIPR2» 3 августа заняли первое место в рейтингах DappBay и DappRadar

MEET48 "2024 GIPR2" Oylama Etkinliği Nihai Sonuçları 3 Ağustos'ta DappBay ve DappRadar'da İlk Sırada

Kết quả cuối cùng của sự kiện bình chọn MEET48 "2024 GIPR2" vào ngày 3 tháng 8, Xếp hạng hàng đầu trên DappBay và DappRadar

MEET48“2024 GIPR2”投票活动8月3日最终结果公布，位列DappBay、DappRadar榜首

Scientific American, Vol. XXXIX. No. 6. [New Series.], August 10, 1878, by Various is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. Read this book online for free on HackerNoon! : Scientific American, Vol. XXXIX. No. 6. [New Series.], August 10, 1878 Title : Various Author : July 22, 2013 [eBook #43282] Release date : English Language TABLE OF LINKS PROGRESS OF IRON MAKING. THE TELEPHONE AS A PROMOTER OF SCIENCE. LETTER FROM PROFESSOR HUGHES. THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN EXPORT EDITION. FOUNTAIN PENS. THE SUN. MECHANICAL PUDDLING IN SWEDEN. A NEW DEEP-SEA THERMOMETER. COMMUNICATIONS Our Patent Law. The Edison Carbon Telephone and Hughes' Microphone. THE DISTILLATION OF COAL. NEW CUTTING AND BORING ATTACHMENT FOR LATHES. NEW STEAM VALVE. THE RHINOCEROS HORNBILL. THE JAPANESE BUILDING AT THE PARIS EXHIBITION. CROOKED JOURNALISM. A VELOCIPEDE FEAT EXTRAORDINARY. ASTRONOMICAL NOTES. BUSINESS AND PERSONAL NOTES AND QUERIES About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Various (2013). Scientific American, Vol. XXXIX. No. 6. [New Series.], August 10, 1878. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/19406/pg19406-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

Scientific American, Vol. XXXIX. No. 6. [New Series.], August 10, 1878, by Various - Table of Links

Scientific American Supplement, No. 711, August 17, 1889, by Various is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. Read this book online for free on HackerNoon! : Scientific American Supplement, No. 711, August 17, 1889 Title : Various Author : October 31, 2005 [eBook #16972] Most recently updated: December 12, 2020 Release date : English Language TABLE OF LINKS I. AGRICULTURE. How to Raise Turkeys. Pear Duchesse D'Angouleme. II. BIOLOGY. Development of the Embryo. The "Hatchery" of the Sun Fish. III. CHEMISTRY. On Allotropic Forms of Silver. On the Occurrence of Paraffine in Crude Petroleum. Turpentine and its Products. IV. ELECTRICITY. Electric Lighting at the Paris Exhibition. Magnetism in its Relation to Induced Electromotive Force and Current. The Ader Flourish of Trumpets. The Electric Motor Tests on the New York Elevated Railroad. V. ETHNOLOGY. Ancient Lake Dwellings. VI. FORESTRY. Succession of Forest Growths. VII. HYGIENE AND MEDICINE. Acetic Acid as a Disinfectant. Counter-Irritation in Whooping Cough. On the Health Value to Man of the So-called Divinely Beneficent Gift, Tobacco. Water as a Therapeutical Agent. VIII. MILITARY ENGINEERING. Gibraltar and Neighborhood. The Defense of Gibraltar IX. NAVAL ENGINEERING. Clark's Gyroscopic Torpedoes. The First Steamboat on the Seine. The Franz Josef I., New War Ship. X. PHOTOGRAPHY. Orthochromatic Photography. Platinotype Printing. XI. PHYSICS. Iridescent Crystals. Transmission of Pressure in Fluids. XII. TECHNOLOGY. Notes on Dyewood Extracts and Similar Preparations. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Various (2004). Scientific American Supplement, No. 711, August 17, 1889. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/16972/pg16972-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

Scientific American Supplement, No. 711, August 17, 1889, by Various - Table of Links

How are you, hacker?
🪐 has got you covered with fresh content from our trending stories of the day! Set email preference . Want to know what's trending right now?: The Techbeat by HackerNoon here August Rollups Data Analysis: A Closer Look at Transaction Activity By [ 2 Min read ]
As the primary direction for Layer2 scaling, the Rollup track has seen frequent developments lately. @opside Read More. Managing Stateful Applications in Containerized Environments By [ 5 Min read ]
Learn essential tips for handling stateful applications in container setups. Discover efficient strategies for seamless management in containerized environments @dylanmich Read More. Vector Databases - Basics of Vector Search and Langchain Package in Python By [ 7 Min read ]
In this article, I will walk you through the basics of vector databases, vector search and Langchain package in python for storing and querying similar vectors. @shyamganesh Read More. Creating a Data Lakehouse using Apache Iceberg and MinIO By [ 12 Min read ]
The promise of Data Lakehouses is in their capabilities for structured and unstructured data, all in a centralized solution using Apache Iceberg and MinIO. @minio Read More. Confessions of a DevOps Guru: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace Continuous Integration By [ 3 Min read ]
Learn About The DevOps Guru Journey To Adopting Continuous Integration @abrahamdahunsi Read More. I'm Done Typing npm: A Zsh Function for JavaScript Package Managers By [ 1 Min read ]
Use zsh functions to create command line alias that determines local package manager and runs the corrrect comamnd: bun, pnpm, npm, or yarn. @chantastic Read More. ChatGPT Now Speaks, Listens, and Understands: All You Need to Know By [ 2 Min read ]
All you need to know about new ChatGPT feature - Voice assistant @sergey-baloyan Read More. Five Free AI Tools for Programmers to 10X Their Productivity By [ 3 Min read ]
These five AI tools will make the lives of programmers and coders easy by increasing the speed and accuracy of their coding projects. @mirzaariquealam Read More. Borrowing on Ethereum: Comparing Architecture Evolution of MakerDAO, Yield, Aave, Compound, & Euler By [ 12 Min read ]
Comprehensive overview of the key collateralized borrowing applications on Ethereum. Reusable approach to analyse other similar applications. @albertocuestacanada Read More. Turn GPT-4 Into Your Expert: Fine-Tuning Large Language Models Easily By [ 2 Min read ]
Boost AI Performance with Fine-Tuning @whatsai Read More. 75% Of Companies Are Banning the Use of ChatGPT: What Happened? By [ 4 Min read ]
Explore the rising concerns over data leaks with ChatGPT. From potential risks around user data privacy to high-profile incidents involving tech giants. @georgedrennan Read More. GPT-4, Llama-2, Claude: How Different Language Models React to Prompts By [ 2 Min read ]
Exploring the unique behaviors of different Large Language Models (LLMs) and mastering advanced prompting techniques! @whatsai Read More. The Cheapskate’s Guide to Fine-Tuning LLaMA-2 and Running It on Your Laptop By [ 5 Min read ]
Everyone is GPU-poor these days So my mission is to fine-tune a LLaMA-2 model with only one GPU and run on my laptop @bruce-li Read More. Stop Using State for React Forms, There is a Much Better Way! By [ 7 Min read ]
Learn how to optimize the performance of react forms by replacing useState with the native feature of JavaScript. @nirmalkumar Read More. Could a Hard Drive Supply Chain Crisis Push AI and Digital Ads to the Breaking Point? By [ 14 Min read ]
This article explores the very real chance of an AI-triggered hard disk drive supply chain crisis that could temporarily threaten trillion-dollar tech firms. @hillpot Read More. Model Quantization in Deep Neural Networks By [ 6 Min read ]
To get your AI models to work on laptops, mobiles and tiny devices quantization is essential @aibites Read More. How to Copyright Your AI Creations By [ 7 Min read ]
Who owns AI-generated content? AI content isn't naturally copyrightable, but there's a workaround @julieplavnik Read More. Unlocking Structured JSON Data with LangChain and GPT: A Step-by-Step Tutorial By [ 8 Min read ]
Manipulating Structured Data (from PDFs) with the Model behind ChatGPT, LangChain, and Python for Powerful AI-driven Applications. @horosin Read More. Making TypeScript Truly "Strongly Typed" By [ 12 Min read ]
How to Control the "Any" Type to Achieve Ultimate Type Safety With TypeScript. @nodge Read More. How Anybrain is Using AI to Fight Video Game Hackers By [ 15 Min read ]
Anybrain is a Portugal-based company that is currently popular for its AI anti-cheat solution for online games, co-founded by André Pimenta and Serafim Pinto. 🧑‍💻 What happened in your world this week?It's been said that , , . Feeling stuck? We got you covered ⬇️⬇️⬇️ We hope you enjoy this worth of free reading material. Feel free to forward this email to a nerdy friend who'll love you for it.See you on Planet Internet! With love,
The Hacker Noon Team ✌️ @kingabimbola Read More. writing can help consolidate technical knowledge establish credibility and contribute to emerging community standards ANSWER THESE GREATEST INTERVIEW QUESTIONS OF ALL TIME

The TechBeat: August Rollups Data Analysis: A Closer Look at Transaction Activity (10/3/2023)

How are you, hacker?
🪐 has got you covered with fresh content from our trending stories of the day! Set email preference . Want to know what's trending right now?: The Techbeat by HackerNoon here August Rollups Data Analysis: A Closer Look at Transaction Activity By [ 2 Min read ]
As the primary direction for Layer2 scaling, the Rollup track has seen frequent developments lately. @opside Read More. Creating a Data Lakehouse using Apache Iceberg and MinIO By [ 12 Min read ]
The promise of Data Lakehouses is in their capabilities for structured and unstructured data, all in a centralized solution using Apache Iceberg and MinIO. @minio Read More. Confessions of a DevOps Guru: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace Continuous Integration By [ 3 Min read ]
Learn About The DevOps Guru Journey To Adopting Continuous Integration @abrahamdahunsi Read More. ChatGPT Now Speaks, Listens, and Understands: All You Need to Know By [ 2 Min read ]
All you need to know about new ChatGPT feature - Voice assistant @sergey-baloyan Read More. I'm Done Typing npm: A Zsh Function for JavaScript Package Managers By [ 1 Min read ]
Use zsh functions to create command line alias that determines local package manager and runs the corrrect comamnd: bun, pnpm, npm, or yarn. @chantastic Read More. 75% Of Companies Are Banning the Use of ChatGPT: What Happened? By [ 4 Min read ]
Explore the rising concerns over data leaks with ChatGPT. From potential risks around user data privacy to high-profile incidents involving tech giants. @georgedrennan Read More. Vector Databases - Basics of Vector Search and Langchain Package in Python By [ 7 Min read ]
In this article, I will walk you through the basics of vector databases, vector search and Langchain package in python for storing and querying similar vectors. @shyamganesh Read More. Turn GPT-4 Into Your Expert: Fine-Tuning Large Language Models Easily By [ 2 Min read ]
Boost AI Performance with Fine-Tuning @whatsai Read More. Five Free AI Tools for Programmers to 10X Their Productivity By [ 3 Min read ]
These five AI tools will make the lives of programmers and coders easy by increasing the speed and accuracy of their coding projects. @mirzaariquealam Read More. Unveiling the Hidden Web: the Top 10 Search Engines and Websites for Deeper Online Exploration By [ 6 Min read ]
Unlocking the hidden web's secrets: 10 search engines, safety, ethics, and exploration tips. @abrahamdahunsi Read More. Borrowing on Ethereum: Comparing Architecture Evolution of MakerDAO, Yield, Aave, Compound, & Euler By [ 12 Min read ]
Comprehensive overview of the key collateralized borrowing applications on Ethereum. Reusable approach to analyse other similar applications. @albertocuestacanada Read More. Model Quantization in Deep Neural Networks By [ 6 Min read ]
To get your AI models to work on laptops, mobiles and tiny devices quantization is essential @aibites Read More. Stop Using State for React Forms, There is a Much Better Way! By [ 7 Min read ]
Learn how to optimize the performance of react forms by replacing useState with the native feature of JavaScript. @nirmalkumar Read More. The Cheapskate’s Guide to Fine-Tuning LLaMA-2 and Running It on Your Laptop By [ 5 Min read ]
Everyone is GPU-poor these days So my mission is to fine-tune a LLaMA-2 model with only one GPU and run on my laptop @bruce-li Read More. The 8 Most Dangerous Cash App Scams (with Screenshots) By [ 7 Min read ]
If you're a Cash App user, here are the eight most dangerous scams to look out for. @marcusleary Read More. Could a Hard Drive Supply Chain Crisis Push AI and Digital Ads to the Breaking Point? By [ 14 Min read ]
This article explores the very real chance of an AI-triggered hard disk drive supply chain crisis that could temporarily threaten trillion-dollar tech firms. @hillpot Read More. The Comedian’s Last Act: A Satire About Tech Jobs and Layoffs By [ 5 Min read ]
A satire about tech jobs and layoffs - The protagonist is visited by Death after losing their job and is informed that they are being "fired" from life. @hernanortiz Read More. Unlocking Structured JSON Data with LangChain and GPT: A Step-by-Step Tutorial By [ 8 Min read ]
Manipulating Structured Data (from PDFs) with the Model behind ChatGPT, LangChain, and Python for Powerful AI-driven Applications. @horosin Read More. GPT-4, Llama-2, Claude: How Different Language Models React to Prompts By [ 2 Min read ]
Exploring the unique behaviors of different Large Language Models (LLMs) and mastering advanced prompting techniques! @whatsai Read More. The DevOps Writing Contest: Round 1 Results Announced! By [ 3 Min read ]
Here's the first list of winners of the DevOps writing contest by Aptible and HackerNoon. 🧑‍💻 What happened in your world this week?It's been said that , , . Feeling stuck? We got you covered ⬇️⬇️⬇️ We hope you enjoy this worth of free reading material. Feel free to forward this email to a nerdy friend who'll love you for it.See you on Planet Internet! With love,
The Hacker Noon Team ✌️ @hackernooncontests Read More. writing can help consolidate technical knowledge establish credibility and contribute to emerging community standards ANSWER THESE GREATEST INTERVIEW QUESTIONS OF ALL TIME

The TechBeat: August Rollups Data Analysis: A Closer Look at Transaction Activity (10/1/2023)

As of today, the narrative of Rollups has gradually become ingrained in people's minds. On one hand, it inherits the security, user base, and ecosystem of the Mainnet while reducing transaction fees and effectively boosting performance, greatly enhancing the user experience. On the other hand, the business model of Layer2, such as transaction fee commissions, is becoming increasingly clear. As the primary direction for Layer2 scaling, the Rollup track has seen frequent developments lately: Linea announced the opening of Alpha access to the Mainnet, Base officially launched its Mainnet, zkSync's bridge transaction user participation exceeded 2 million... To gain a better understanding of the overall development of the Layer2 track, Opside has compiled statistics on some of the mainstream Layer2 solutions on the market (Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync, Linea, Base, etc.) and conducted an analysis of various dimensions. Below are the specific data performances of major Rollups in August: Transaction Activity In terms of transaction activity, zkSync stands out with an astonishing average daily transaction count of 929,445. This indicates that zkSync's ecosystem has achieved significant success in attracting users and transactions. On the other hand, Metis shows relatively weaker performance with an average daily transaction count of only 116,017, which could be attributed to Metis' high transaction fees. User Costs From a user cost perspective, Metis' users seem to incur relatively high gas fees, with an average daily GasFee of 17.001 Gwei. In stark contrast, Optimism has very low user costs, with an average daily GasFee of only 0.131 Gwei. This could make Optimism more attractive, especially for users looking to reduce transaction costs. However, Optimism has not found an appropriate balance yet. Maybe the low GasFee has led to losses. Performance of revenues and expenses In terms of revenues, Metis shows outstanding performance with an average daily revenue of 62.591 ETH, which is the highest among the analyzed solutions. However, Optimism leads in terms of expenditure, with a monthly total expenditure of 1,272.512 ETH. This may require Optimism to further optimize its expenditure strategy to improve net revenues. Net Income Metis also performs well in net income, with an average daily net income of 61.617 ETH and a monthly total net income of 1,910.115 ETH. In contrast, Optimism has a negative net income, with an average daily net income of -26.050 ETH and a monthly total net income of -807.558 ETH. This calls for measures to improve net income for Optimism to maintain its sustainability, such as appropriately increasing GasFee.

August Rollups Data Analysis: A Closer Look at Transaction Activity

Análisis de datos acumulativos de agosto: una mirada más cercana a la actividad de las transacciones

Analyse des données des cumuls d'août : un examen plus approfondi de l'activité des transactions

अगस्त रोलअप डेटा विश्लेषण: लेन-देन गतिविधि पर एक नज़दीकी नज़र

8 月のロールアップ データ分析: トランザクション アクティビティを詳しく見る

Análise de dados de rollups de agosto: uma análise mais detalhada da atividade de transação

Phân tích dữ liệu tổng hợp tháng 8: Xem xét kỹ hơn về hoạt động giao dịch

八月汇总数据分析：仔细观察交易活动

Virtual Event Connects Participants with Grant Funding Opportunities and Industry Leaders SI3, an organization championing women and non-binary individuals in the Web3 space, has announced its inaugural "Granting Access" event on August 1, 2024. The virtual gathering will connect participants with grant funding opportunities at major blockchain and protocol organizations and features representatives from Gitcoin, LUKSO, ThankArb, Push Protocol, and Unlock Protocol. "Granting Access" is designed to foster financial inclusion and access for underrepresented groups within the Web3 ecosystem. The event will kick off with a keynote presentation by Kara Howard, Co-Creator of SI3 and the Si Her Co-Active, who emphasized the importance of unifying and accelerating the growth of women in Web3. "We are thrilled to host Granting Access, an event that aligns with our mission to drive financial inclusion and access for women and non-binary individuals in the Web3 ecosystem," said Howard. "We hope to foster a more equitable and diverse Web3 landscape by bringing together leaders and grant programs." Panel discussions will feature Elizabeth Cusma (EducationDAO), Mashal Waqar (Octant), and Reena Shtedle (Founding Member, Cosmos Cartel), moderated by Ksenia Stark (Co-Founder, ⅄Oᒋ⅋NOISՈᖵNOϽ and Partner Growth, SI3) delving into strategies for equity and financial inclusion in the space. The sessions will provide attendees with a unique opportunity to engage directly with representatives from leading blockchain and protocol organizations. Participants are set to learn about various grant programs, funding priorities, and application processes, gaining valuable insights into securing financial support for their Web3 projects and initiatives. FIXX: Building a More Inclusive Web3 Future The "Granting Access" event is just one facet of SI3's broader mission to empower women and non-binary individuals in Web3. Their flagship initiative, FIXX (Financial Inclusion XX Chromosome), is a comprehensive program providing education, mentorship, and community-building opportunities. FIXX's upcoming program, starting in September 2024, will feature monthly sessions on personal values, unconscious bias, diversity in marketing, DEI strategies, advocacy, and impact tracking. By equipping participants with the knowledge and skills necessary to thrive in the Web3 landscape, FIXX is helping to build a more inclusive and equitable future for all. A Call to Action SI3's "Granting Access" event and the FIXX initiative represent a significant step forward in fostering diversity and inclusion within the Web3 community. "I'm excited about this event because it’s a chance to push for more recognition of women in web3 and learn from others. I believe that equity and financial inclusion are key to real progress and innovation," Mathilde DV, Grants Program Lead at Gitcoin, said. As the decentralized technology landscape continues to evolve, it is essential to ensure that opportunities are accessible to everyone, regardless of gender or background. After all, DEI isn’t a “nice to have” or a cause driven by ethical and moral issues - diverse, equitable, and inclusive teams contribute to financial success by fostering innovative, engaged, and productive workforces that create products and services that work for and resonate with a broader range of consumers and investors. Despite DEI layoffs at major corporations such as Microsoft, the momentum is building, and the message is clear: a more diverse and equitable Web3 is not just an aspiration but a necessity for the industry's continued success. Interested participants can register for Granting Access via Unlock. Virtual Event Connects Participants with Grant Funding Opportunities and Industry Leaders Virtual Event Connects Participants with Grant Funding Opportunities and Industry Leaders SI3 , an organization championing women and non-binary individuals in the Web3 space, has announced its inaugural "Granting Access" event on August 1, 2024. The virtual gathering will connect participants with grant funding opportunities at major blockchain and protocol organizations and features representatives from Gitcoin , LUKSO , ThankArb , Push Protocol , and Unlock Protocol . SI3 Gitcoin LUKSO ThankArb Push Protocol Unlock Protocol " Granting Access " is designed to foster financial inclusion and access for underrepresented groups within the Web3 ecosystem. The event will kick off with a keynote presentation by Kara Howard, Co-Creator of SI3 and the Si Her Co-Active, who emphasized the importance of unifying and accelerating the growth of women in Web3. Granting Access "We are thrilled to host Granting Access, an event that aligns with our mission to drive financial inclusion and access for women and non-binary individuals in the Web3 ecosystem," said Howard. "We hope to foster a more equitable and diverse Web3 landscape by bringing together leaders and grant programs." Panel discussions will feature Elizabeth Cusma ( EducationDAO ), Mashal Waqar ( Octant ), and Reena Shtedle (Founding Member, Cosmos Cartel ), moderated by Ksenia Stark (Co-Founder, ⅄Oᒋ⅋NOISՈᖵNOϽ and Partner Growth, SI3) delving into strategies for equity and financial inclusion in the space. EducationDAO Octant Cosmos Cartel ⅄Oᒋ⅋NOISՈᖵNOϽ The sessions will provide attendees with a unique opportunity to engage directly with representatives from leading blockchain and protocol organizations. Participants are set to learn about various grant programs , funding priorities, and application processes, gaining valuable insights into securing financial support for their Web3 projects and initiatives. learn about various grant programs FIXX: Building a More Inclusive Web3 Future FIXX: Building a More Inclusive Web3 Future The "Granting Access" event is just one facet of SI3's broader mission to empower women and non-binary individuals in Web3. Their flagship initiative, FIXX (Financial Inclusion XX Chromosome), is a comprehensive program providing education, mentorship, and community-building opportunities. FIXX's upcoming program, starting in September 2024, will feature monthly sessions on personal values, unconscious bias, diversity in marketing, DEI strategies, advocacy, and impact tracking. By equipping participants with the knowledge and skills necessary to thrive in the Web3 landscape, FIXX is helping to build a more inclusive and equitable future for all. A Call to Action A Call to Action SI3's "Granting Access" event and the FIXX initiative represent a significant step forward in fostering diversity and inclusion within the Web3 community. "I'm excited about this event because it’s a chance to push for more recognition of women in web3 and learn from others. I believe that equity and financial inclusion are key to real progress and innovation," Mathilde DV, Grants Program Lead at Gitcoin, said. As the decentralized technology landscape continues to evolve, it is essential to ensure that opportunities are accessible to everyone, regardless of gender or background. After all, DEI isn’t a “nice to have” or a cause driven by ethical and moral issues - diverse, equitable, and inclusive teams contribute to financial success by fostering innovative, engaged, and productive workforces that create products and services that work for and resonate with a broader range of consumers and investors. Despite DEI layoffs at major corporations such as Microsoft , the momentum is building, and the message is clear: a more diverse and equitable Web3 is not just an aspiration but a necessity for the industry's continued success. Interested participants can register for Granting Access via Unlock . DEI layoffs at major corporations such as Microsoft register for Granting Access via Unlock

Empowering Change: SI3's "Granting Access" Event Boosts Diversity in Web3

Court Reveals Wright's 2024 MYOB Email Was Manipulated to Support False Claims

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 39 of 42. 37. The Tulip Trust Deed (Particulars of Claim at [66A] {A/2/10}) ({ID_001186}) / {L8/20/1}) The Fifth Pleaded Example 728. In the Kleiman Litigation, Dr Wright proffered a Deed of Trust document as evidence of the existence of a trust called the Tulip Trust. Dr Wright has claimed that the Tulip Trust held Bitcoin and/or an encrypted file with keys to that Bitcoin. The Deed of Trust document that was adduced by Dr Wright was dated 23 October 2012. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 729. The date of 23 October 2012 was false. Computer forensic analysis of this document shows that it was backdated and that it was not created until at least 22 May 2015 (over two years after the death of David Kleiman on 26 April 2013). This document was therefore forged. As to the basis on which the Claimant alleges forgery, the Claimant relies on the above matters and the fact that this Deed of Trust document was found to be backdated in the Order of Justice Reinhart dated 27 August 2019. 730. A copy of this document is at C00000560 {L8/17/1}, which was included in the Extended Disclosure served on 7 March 2023. The Re-Re-Amended Defence was served on 20 April 2023. (b) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 731. The document appears as a Deed of Trust between two Seychelles companies, Wright International Investments (“WIIL”) and Tulip Trading Ltd (“TTL”) with a date of 23 October 2012. 732. In Wright11 Appendix C, Dr Wright addressed this 23 October 2012 Deed of Trust document by reference to one particular version of it. There are a number of copies disclosed which are all identical in substance: 732.1. (C00000560) / {L8/17/1} – (includes the Kleiman case reference at the top). 732.2. (ID_001186) / {L8/20/1}; 732.3. (ID_003790) / {L8/28/1}; 732.4. (ID_003982) / {L8/14/1}; and 732.5. (ID_003329) / L15/86/1} – this is the version Dr Wright refers to in Wright11. 733. Mr Madden addresses the identical nature of the above documents in PM48, {H/304/8}. In PM48, Mr Madden notes that the documents analysed indicate that WIIL was purchased as an aged shelf company in 2014, not being active prior to that date: PM48 at [29] {H/304/9}. Mr Madden also notes the effect of similar analysis in respect of other similar documents relating to TTL (PM4 [119-127], {H/29/38}). 734. In his Defence (after various amendments), Dr Wright states that, pursuant to an order of the US Court in the Kleiman proceedings, he disclosed a copy of a Deed of Trust document between two Seychelles companies, WIIL and TTL, with a date of 23 October 2012 (Defence [85A(1)] {A/3/26}. Dr Wright claims that: “The date 23 October 2012 is not a false date as the Deed of Trust was executed on 23 October 2012” (Defence [85A(5)] {A/3/27}. 735. In Wright11, Dr Wright gives the following account. He says that he set up the trust structure with the intention that he did not have any rights to see documents until 2020 (Wright11 Appendix C, [6.6] {CSW/3/14}). Dr Wright says that Dianne Pinder of Lloyds solicitors in Brisbane Australia drafted a deed of trust to replace a former trust structure that had been set up in such a way that he did not have a right to see documents until 2020 (Wright11 Appendix C, [6.6] {CSW/3/14}). Dr Wright says that, as he was not a party to the Tulip Trust Deed, he can only comment on what appears on the face of the documents, and that the version at {ID_003329} is not the trust deed for the Tulip Trust (Wright11 Appendix C, [6.11] {CSW/3/15}). The position stated in Wright11 therefore appears to be that, whilst a trust was settled on 23 October 2012 which was called the Tulip Trust, the disclosed versions set out above do not represent the deed of that trust or record its terms. 736. Dr Wright further states in Wright11 that he thinks that the version at {ID_003329} has been doctored by someone, as some of the parties acting for Savannah Ltd as noted in the document held no authority with the company, which he did not find out until after 2022 (Wright11 Appendix C, [6.12] {CSW/3/15}). 737. In his oral evidence at trial, Dr Wright at first accepted that he had sworn in the Kleiman proceedings that the Tulip Trust Deed put to him in those proceedings (which was the version at {L8/17/1}) was an authentic document {Day4/107:4} to {Day4/109:5}. However, he then went on to say that it does not record the terms of the trust. He said that this particular Tulip Trust Deed is not a real document and that it is not part of the trust. Dr Wright claimed that he told the Judge in Kleiman that it was a real document but that he did not know any different to say otherwise at that time: {Day4/109:2} to {Day4/112:2}. He claimed that he had subsequently spoken to some of the individuals whose signatures appear on this Tulip Trust Deed and they told him that they did not sign it: {Day4/113:6}. 738. Dr Wright claimed that this particular version of the Tulip Trust Deed was formed by someone merging documents together: {Day4/114:5}. Dr Wright said that it was a fake document used by Ira Kleiman, and that there had never been any agreement made between Wright International and Tulip Trading: {Day4/115:10} to {Day4/115/20}. 739. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected for the following reasons: 739.1. On Dr Wright’s own admission, the Tulip Trust Deed is not a genuine document on the basis that (on his account) (i) there never has been any agreement between WIIL and TTL at all; (ii) the signatures are said not to be genuine; and (iii) the terms do not reflect what he understood to be the terms of the Tulip Trust Deed actually executed on 23 October 2012. It is, however, remarkable that he failed to mention this in his Re-Amended Defence. 739.2. There is no evidence of any of other version of the Tulip Trust Deed dated to 23 October 2012 with different terms. Dr Wright has not brought any of those who are said to deny signing this deed to Court as witnesses, nor has he called anyone as a witness to say what the “real” terms of the Tulip Trust are. 739.3. WIIL is purportedly a party to the Tulip Trust Deed, but that company was only first purchased as an off the shelf company by Dr Wright in October 2014. Mr Madden's findings in Appendix PM48 to the effect that alteration of documents supports that proposition {H/304/9} were not challenged in cross-examination. 739.4. Paragraph 3 of this Tulip Trust Deed {L8/17/2} refers to bitcoin having been transferred into TTL on 10 June 2011, although that company likewise was not purchased until October 2014 (as explained in relation to {ID_001421} and {ID_001930} in COPA’s original Forgeries Schedule at {A/2/91} and {A/2/101}. 739.5. There is nothing in the terms of this trust (as recorded in this Deed) to say that trust documents cannot be shown to Dr Wright. He claimed that he did not know the terms of the document, but also that those terms precluded him from talking directly to any of the individuals involved. He then said that he had spoken to them and found out that the signatures on the document were not genuine. Dr Wright's evidence about this document, and the Tulip Trust more generally, has been confused and internally inconsistent. In particular, he has invented the excuse of having been precluded from seeing the document to explain away his having sworn to its authenticity in the Kleiman proceedings and made a sworn declaration based on its terms, but then having denied its authenticity in the Granath proceedings. See generally: {Day3/105:2} to {Day3/119:5}. (c) Conclusions 740. I found Dr Wright’s contorted explanations to be wholly unconvincing and false, including his final excuse that this document was ‘doctored by someone’. 741. There is strong evidence that (and I so find) both Tulip Trading Limited and Wright International Investments Ltd were acquired by Dr Wright in 2014 as aged shelf companies, and that the ‘Tulip Trust’ itself was a fabrication designed to shield Dr Wright’s assets against possible bankruptcy. Dr Wright’s explanations of the terms of the Trust were inconsistent and did not ring true. He has never explained the plain inconsistency between his assertion that the Trust put his assets (including his IP in various documents) beyond reach, yet his continued ability apparently to reference and use all such documents to yield the large number of ‘White Papers’ which are said to have given rise to all the claimed patent filings for nChain. 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 39 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 39 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 37. The Tulip Trust Deed (Particulars of Claim at [66A] {A/2/10}) ({ID_001186}) / {L8/20/1}) The Fifth Pleaded Example 728. In the Kleiman Litigation, Dr Wright proffered a Deed of Trust document as evidence of the existence of a trust called the Tulip Trust. Dr Wright has claimed that the Tulip Trust held Bitcoin and/or an encrypted file with keys to that Bitcoin. The Deed of Trust document that was adduced by Dr Wright was dated 23 October 2012. Kleiman (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 729. The date of 23 October 2012 was false. Computer forensic analysis of this document shows that it was backdated and that it was not created until at least 22 May 2015 (over two years after the death of David Kleiman on 26 April 2013). This document was therefore forged. As to the basis on which the Claimant alleges forgery, the Claimant relies on the above matters and the fact that this Deed of Trust document was found to be backdated in the Order of Justice Reinhart dated 27 August 2019. 730. A copy of this document is at C00000560 {L8/17/1}, which was included in the Extended Disclosure served on 7 March 2023. The Re-Re-Amended Defence was served on 20 April 2023. (b) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (b) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 731. The document appears as a Deed of Trust between two Seychelles companies, Wright International Investments (“ WIIL ”) and Tulip Trading Ltd (“ TTL ”) with a date of 23 October 2012. WIIL TTL 732. In Wright11 Appendix C, Dr Wright addressed this 23 October 2012 Deed of Trust document by reference to one particular version of it. There are a number of copies disclosed which are all identical in substance: 732.1. (C00000560) / {L8/17/1} – (includes the Kleiman case reference at the top). 732.2. (ID_001186) / {L8/20/1}; 732.3. (ID_003790) / {L8/28/1}; 732.4. (ID_003982) / {L8/14/1}; and 732.5. (ID_003329) / L15/86/1} – this is the version Dr Wright refers to in Wright11. 733. Mr Madden addresses the identical nature of the above documents in PM48, {H/304/8}. In PM48, Mr Madden notes that the documents analysed indicate that WIIL was purchased as an aged shelf company in 2014, not being active prior to that date: PM48 at [29] {H/304/9}. Mr Madden also notes the effect of similar analysis in respect of other similar documents relating to TTL (PM4 [119-127], {H/29/38}). 734. In his Defence (after various amendments), Dr Wright states that, pursuant to an order of the US Court in the Kleiman proceedings, he disclosed a copy of a Deed of Trust document between two Seychelles companies, WIIL and TTL, with a date of 23 October 2012 (Defence [85A(1)] {A/3/26}. Dr Wright claims that: “The date 23 October 2012 is not a false date as the Deed of Trust was executed on 23 October 2012” (Defence [85A(5)] {A/3/27}. “The date 23 October 2012 is not a false date as the Deed of Trust was executed on 23 October 2012” 735. In Wright11, Dr Wright gives the following account. He says that he set up the trust structure with the intention that he did not have any rights to see documents until 2020 (Wright11 Appendix C, [6.6] {CSW/3/14}). Dr Wright says that Dianne Pinder of Lloyds solicitors in Brisbane Australia drafted a deed of trust to replace a former trust structure that had been set up in such a way that he did not have a right to see documents until 2020 (Wright11 Appendix C, [6.6] {CSW/3/14}). Dr Wright says that, as he was not a party to the Tulip Trust Deed, he can only comment on what appears on the face of the documents, and that the version at {ID_003329} is not the trust deed for the Tulip Trust (Wright11 Appendix C, [6.11] {CSW/3/15}). The position stated in Wright11 therefore appears to be that, whilst a trust was settled on 23 October 2012 which was called the Tulip Trust, the disclosed versions set out above do not represent the deed of that trust or record its terms. 736. Dr Wright further states in Wright11 that he thinks that the version at {ID_003329} has been doctored by someone, as some of the parties acting for Savannah Ltd as noted in the document held no authority with the company, which he did not find out until after 2022 (Wright11 Appendix C, [6.12] {CSW/3/15}). 737. In his oral evidence at trial, Dr Wright at first accepted that he had sworn in the Kleiman proceedings that the Tulip Trust Deed put to him in those proceedings (which was the version at {L8/17/1}) was an authentic document {Day4/107:4} to {Day4/109:5}. However, he then went on to say that it does not record the terms of the trust. He said that this particular Tulip Trust Deed is not a real document and that it is not part of the trust. Dr Wright claimed that he told the Judge in Kleiman that it was a real document but that he did not know any different to say otherwise at that time: {Day4/109:2} to {Day4/112:2}. He claimed that he had subsequently spoken to some of the individuals whose signatures appear on this Tulip Trust Deed and they told him that they did not sign it: {Day4/113:6}. 738. Dr Wright claimed that this particular version of the Tulip Trust Deed was formed by someone merging documents together: {Day4/114:5}. Dr Wright said that it was a fake document used by Ira Kleiman, and that there had never been any agreement made between Wright International and Tulip Trading: {Day4/115:10} to {Day4/115/20}. 739. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected for the following reasons: 739.1. On Dr Wright’s own admission, the Tulip Trust Deed is not a genuine document on the basis that (on his account) (i) there never has been any agreement between WIIL and TTL at all; (ii) the signatures are said not to be genuine; and (iii) the terms do not reflect what he understood to be the terms of the Tulip Trust Deed actually executed on 23 October 2012. It is, however, remarkable that he failed to mention this in his Re-Amended Defence. 739.2. There is no evidence of any of other version of the Tulip Trust Deed dated to 23 October 2012 with different terms. Dr Wright has not brought any of those who are said to deny signing this deed to Court as witnesses, nor has he called anyone as a witness to say what the “real” terms of the Tulip Trust are. 739.3. WIIL is purportedly a party to the Tulip Trust Deed, but that company was only first purchased as an off the shelf company by Dr Wright in October 2014. Mr Madden's findings in Appendix PM48 to the effect that alteration of documents supports that proposition {H/304/9} were not challenged in cross-examination. 739.4. Paragraph 3 of this Tulip Trust Deed {L8/17/2} refers to bitcoin having been transferred into TTL on 10 June 2011, although that company likewise was not purchased until October 2014 (as explained in relation to {ID_001421} and {ID_001930} in COPA’s original Forgeries Schedule at {A/2/91} and {A/2/101}. 739.5. There is nothing in the terms of this trust (as recorded in this Deed) to say that trust documents cannot be shown to Dr Wright. He claimed that he did not know the terms of the document, but also that those terms precluded him from talking directly to any of the individuals involved. He then said that he had spoken to them and found out that the signatures on the document were not genuine. Dr Wright's evidence about this document, and the Tulip Trust more generally, has been confused and internally inconsistent. In particular, he has invented the excuse of having been precluded from seeing the document to explain away his having sworn to its authenticity in the Kleiman proceedings and made a sworn declaration based on its terms, but then having denied its authenticity in the Granath proceedings. See generally: {Day3/105:2} to {Day3/119:5}. Kleiman Granath (c) Conclusions (c) Conclusions 740. I found Dr Wright’s contorted explanations to be wholly unconvincing and false, including his final excuse that this document was ‘doctored by someone’. 741. There is strong evidence that (and I so find) both Tulip Trading Limited and Wright International Investments Ltd were acquired by Dr Wright in 2014 as aged shelf companies, and that the ‘Tulip Trust’ itself was a fabrication designed to shield Dr Wright’s assets against possible bankruptcy. Dr Wright’s explanations of the terms of the Trust were inconsistent and did not ring true. He has never explained the plain inconsistency between his assertion that the Trust put his assets (including his IP in various documents) beyond reach, yet his continued ability apparently to reference and use all such documents to yield the large number of ‘White Papers’ which are said to have given rise to all the claimed patent filings for nChain. 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

Forensic Analysis Exposes Flaws in Craig Wright's Tulip Trust Deed

Dogs of War: Digital Warriors Fighting Russian Disinformation and Supporting Ukraine

Advancements in Bitcoin Scaling — Side Chains and Layer 2 Solutions as Key Players

Craig Wright's Bitcoin White Paper Document Questioned for Forgery

COPA Uncovers Manipulated Bank Statements in Wright's Claim to Be Satoshi Nakamoto

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 28 of 42. 26. The SSRN Submission (Particulars of Claim at [30]-[35] {A/2/10}) The Fourth Pleaded Example 489. On or about 21 August 2019, Dr Wright uploaded to the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) a document which he asserts to be the ‘final’ version of the Bitcoin White Paper, in which he is named as the author. The post claims that the document was written on 21 August 2008. Dr Wright posted two versions of what he claims to be his original version of the Bitcoin White Paper within SSRN. **(a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery** 490. The metadata of the actual Bitcoin White Paper has a creation date of 24 March 2009. The first version Dr Wright submitted to SSRN has discrepancies in the document properties. Examination of this first version reveals that its metadata was tampered with - supplemental metadata was added to this version to superficially indicate a creation date of 24 January 2008 and a “modified” date of 21 May 2008. This added metadata displays as the creation and modified date in the user interface of standard consumer software, i.e. the tampered dates are what would appear to a layperson upon cursory examination. However, a forensic examination of the metadata of this first version reveals another “creation date” entry embedded within the metadata, specifying a creation date that corresponds exactly to the creation date of the Bitcoin White Paper, specifically “/CreationDate (D:20090324113315-06:00)". 491. The metadata of this first version includes an entry indicating that the original creation date is 29 March 2009, which is at odds with the creation date of 24 January 2008 that shows up in other parts of the metadata. In the premises, it is averred that this first version posted to SSRN is actually a copied version of the Bitcoin White Paper with alterations to its metadata (at least that the dates of 24 January 2008 and 21 May 2008 were added to the genuine metadata of the Bitcoin White Paper) to make it appear that it was created in 2008. It is averred that the dates of 24 January 2008 and 21 May 2008 were added to the genuine metadata of the Bitcoin White Paper by Wright to support his attempt to claim that he had drafted the Bitcoin White Paper. 492. The second version that Dr Wright uploaded to SSRN, which is the version he has currently uploaded there, had further changes to the metadata compared to the first version. However, the original creation date of 24 March 2009 from the actual Bitcoin White Paper still exists within the second version’s metadata. COPA allege that Dr Wright again sought to manipulate the metadata a second time but failed to remove the original creation date. 493. The genuine metadata in the actual Bitcoin White Paper and metadata contained within the two versions posted on SSRN by Dr Wright all state the 24 March 2009 date as being the creation date, with the dates/times agreeing to the millisecond. (b) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 494. In his Defence, Dr Wright admits that the two versions of the Bitcoin White Paper which Dr Wright uploaded to SSRN were not created in 2008 or 2009, but in 2019. He claims that his purpose in uploading these versions was not to prove that he was the author of the Bitcoin White Paper but “to assert [his] authorship of the White Paper”: see Defence, [55-56] {A/3/16}. In his Defence, Dr Wright gives no explanation for the uploaded versions having metadata creation dates of 2008 and 2009 respectively. 495. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright repeats the account given in his Defence. However, he now adds the assertion that he prepared each document in LATEX and that he set the metadata in LATEX to refer to creation dates of 2008 and 2009 respectively. See: {CSW/3/8}. 496. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected for the following reasons: 496.1. As established by the evidence of Mr Rosendahl (which was agreed in the joint statement by Dr Wright’s expert, Mr Lynch), Dr Wright’s account of the Bitcoin White Paper being authored in LATEX is false. There is equally no basis for saying that the versions of the White Paper uploaded to the SSRN in 2019 were created in LATEX. 496.2. Accordingly, the only conclusion to be drawn from these versions having been created by Dr Wright in 2019 (as is admitted) but containing metadata referring to 2008 / 2009 creation dates is that the metadata information was deliberately backdated. 496.3. In summary, Dr Wright in 2019 posted publicly two versions of the Bitcoin White Paper which he presented as his work and which contained metadata timestamps backdated to 2008. In the context of Dr Wright claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto and to have written the Bitcoin White Paper, the only plausible explanation is that he was presenting these to the world as early originals of the paper written by him. (c) Conclusion 497. In addition to the points set out above, I refer also to the analysis in the main Judgment at [489]-[495] of what Dr Wright did with the pdfcreationdate command and how those commands were added to the White Paper LaTeX files in November 2023. 498. Accordingly, Dr Wright’s latest explanation, based on the assertion that the Bitcoin White Paper was created in LATEX, is plainly false. The document was deliberately backdated by Dr Wright, in an attempt to present those two versions of the Bitcoin White Paper as early originals written by him. This was all lies. 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 28 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 28 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 26. The SSRN Submission (Particulars of Claim at [30]-[35] {A/2/10}) The Fourth Pleaded Example 489. On or about 21 August 2019, Dr Wright uploaded to the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) a document which he asserts to be the ‘final’ version of the Bitcoin White Paper, in which he is named as the author. The post claims that the document was written on 21 August 2008. Dr Wright posted two versions of what he claims to be his original version of the Bitcoin White Paper within SSRN. **(a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery ** 490. The metadata of the actual Bitcoin White Paper has a creation date of 24 March 2009. The first version Dr Wright submitted to SSRN has discrepancies in the document properties. Examination of this first version reveals that its metadata was tampered with - supplemental metadata was added to this version to superficially indicate a creation date of 24 January 2008 and a “modified” date of 21 May 2008. This added metadata displays as the creation and modified date in the user interface of standard consumer software, i.e. the tampered dates are what would appear to a layperson upon cursory examination. However, a forensic examination of the metadata of this first version reveals another “creation date” entry embedded within the metadata, specifying a creation date that corresponds exactly to the creation date of the Bitcoin White Paper, specifically “/CreationDate (D:20090324113315-06:00)". 491. The metadata of this first version includes an entry indicating that the original creation date is 29 March 2009, which is at odds with the creation date of 24 January 2008 that shows up in other parts of the metadata. In the premises, it is averred that this first version posted to SSRN is actually a copied version of the Bitcoin White Paper with alterations to its metadata (at least that the dates of 24 January 2008 and 21 May 2008 were added to the genuine metadata of the Bitcoin White Paper) to make it appear that it was created in 2008. It is averred that the dates of 24 January 2008 and 21 May 2008 were added to the genuine metadata of the Bitcoin White Paper by Wright to support his attempt to claim that he had drafted the Bitcoin White Paper. 492. The second version that Dr Wright uploaded to SSRN, which is the version he has currently uploaded there, had further changes to the metadata compared to the first version. However, the original creation date of 24 March 2009 from the actual Bitcoin White Paper still exists within the second version’s metadata. COPA allege that Dr Wright again sought to manipulate the metadata a second time but failed to remove the original creation date. 493. The genuine metadata in the actual Bitcoin White Paper and metadata contained within the two versions posted on SSRN by Dr Wright all state the 24 March 2009 date as being the creation date, with the dates/times agreeing to the millisecond. (b) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (b) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 494. In his Defence, Dr Wright admits that the two versions of the Bitcoin White Paper which Dr Wright uploaded to SSRN were not created in 2008 or 2009, but in 2019. He claims that his purpose in uploading these versions was not to prove that he was the author of the Bitcoin White Paper but “to assert [his] authorship of the White Paper”: see Defence, [55-56] {A/3/16}. In his Defence, Dr Wright gives no explanation for the uploaded versions having metadata creation dates of 2008 and 2009 respectively. 495. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright repeats the account given in his Defence. However, he now adds the assertion that he prepared each document in LATEX and that he set the metadata in LATEX to refer to creation dates of 2008 and 2009 respectively. See: {CSW/3/8}. 496. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected for the following reasons: 496.1. As established by the evidence of Mr Rosendahl (which was agreed in the joint statement by Dr Wright’s expert, Mr Lynch), Dr Wright’s account of the Bitcoin White Paper being authored in LATEX is false. There is equally no basis for saying that the versions of the White Paper uploaded to the SSRN in 2019 were created in LATEX. 496.2. Accordingly, the only conclusion to be drawn from these versions having been created by Dr Wright in 2019 (as is admitted) but containing metadata referring to 2008 / 2009 creation dates is that the metadata information was deliberately backdated. 496.3. In summary, Dr Wright in 2019 posted publicly two versions of the Bitcoin White Paper which he presented as his work and which contained metadata timestamps backdated to 2008. In the context of Dr Wright claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto and to have written the Bitcoin White Paper, the only plausible explanation is that he was presenting these to the world as early originals of the paper written by him. (c) Conclusion (c) Conclusion 497. In addition to the points set out above, I refer also to the analysis in the main Judgment at [489]-[495] of what Dr Wright did with the pdfcreationdate command and how those commands were added to the White Paper LaTeX files in November 2023. 498. Accordingly, Dr Wright’s latest explanation, based on the assertion that the Bitcoin White Paper was created in LATEX, is plainly false. The document was deliberately backdated by Dr Wright, in an attempt to present those two versions of the Bitcoin White Paper as early originals written by him. This was all lies. 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

COPA Sues Craig Wright for Forging Bitcoin White Paper Metadata

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 27 of 42. 25. “Block diffusion within bitcoin” (Reliance Document) {ID_000367} / {L3/185/1} 470. The document purports to be precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper relating to network theory and mentioning “bitcoin”. It is dated to the period 15 August 2008 to 8 September 2008. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 471. The document has been backdated. [PM30 [21-24]]. 472. The document contains content taken from a third-party source available online which was published not before 29 April 2012 (the “2012 ResearchGate Article”). [PM30 [8- 13] 473. The document includes a reference section that closely matches the 2012 ResearchGate Article. However, five references which would have been anachronistic to 2008 have been deleted from the document. Although the five references have been removed from the references section, the main body of the text still mentions 4 out of 5 of them. [PM30 [14-18]]. 474. The document contains text formatted in fonts which are not typical for Microsoft Windows and MS Word documents, but which fonts are included in the 2012 ResearchGate Article. Not only the text, but also its font formatting, has been copied from the 2012 ResearchGate article. [PM30 [19-20]]. 475. The document was created within 1 minute before {ID_000371}, another “Lynn Wright document” bearing independent indicia of tampering. [PM27 [17b]]. 476. ID_00367 has an implausible edit time in excess of 24 days. During that time it was saved only once, implying that it was left unsaved for 34,881 minutes before being saved. [PM30 [5-8]]. 477. The document contains passages of red text and placeholder brackets apparently indicating that the document was in the process of being edited with a view to changing the references, but without that process being finalised before disclosure. [PM30 [24]]. 478. The document was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. The email contains several manipulated documents purported to be in the custody of Lynn Wright. [{ID_003930}, PM30 [1], PM 26 [25-38]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 479. Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 480. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on purported work of the type referred to in this document as “foundational” for Bitcoin. [Wright1 [53-54]]. 481. The effect of the tampering is therefore to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work by Dr Wright on a subject of interest to him, but with reference to Bitcoin), contrary to fact. 482. In these proceedings (and previously), Dr Wright has claimed that his development of Bitcoin was influenced by work on networks as covered by this document. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright1 [54]]. 483. Although the document metadata presents Lynn Wright to have been the only author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright after February 2013, and sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email long after they were separated, contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright relies. The metadata of that zip file is itself also irregular. [{ID_003930}, PM30 [1], PM26 [25-38]]. 484. In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 485. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright sought to explain away the presence of content from the 2012 ResearchGate Article by claiming that he had engaged in academic exchanges in which it was commonplace to share working notes: {CSW/2/36}. When pressed in oral evidence, he doubled down by saying that he had received one or more prior versions of the Chinese academics’ article: {Day2/147:14} to {Day2/153:7}. 486. Dr Wright sought to explain the presence in his document of non-standard fonts which appear in the 2012 ResearchGate Article by saying that they were imported from an unidentified Word document: {CSW/2/39}. 487. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 487.1. The document replicates whole sections from the 2012 ResearchGate Article. Dr Wright’s story therefore assumes that he had an advanced pre-publication paper from Chinese academics working in a field different from his own, and that he had this document years before those academics actually published their work. That is simply incredible. 487.2. Dr Wright has been unable to provide any evidence of ever having had contact with these academics and has not disclosed the supposed pre-publication paper. 487.3. The text which Dr Wright copied contained references to at least four works which themselves post-dated the supposed date of Dr Wright’s document. His story therefore assumes that either (i) the Chinese academics themselves happened to have pre-publication versions of all those other works while they were writing their pre-publication draft or (ii) he himself had pre-publication versions of the other works and happened to cite them in the places where the Chinese academics would later cite them in their own paper. Each of those possibilities beggars belief. 487.4. On Dr Wright’s account, either it’s a coincidence that his document happens to contain non-standard fonts which also feature in the ResearchGate article or the Chinese academics had produced a draft including those fonts years before its ultimate publication. This is another implausible but essential feature of the story. 487.5. On any view, Dr Wright’s document copies extensively from text which appears in the 2012 ResearchGate Article, but it does not reference the Chinese academics whose work is being copied. It is difficult to see why Dr Wright would produce a document in this way for legitimate research purposes. 487.6. Dr Wright’s document is a very strange one, for example because (at p3) it includes a scheme of notations (taken from the 2012 ResearchGate Article) for equations which are themselves omitted. It gives every impression of a work which has been created hastily, based on the 2012 ResearchGate Article, as part of the false trail of supposed academic work leading up to production of the Bitcoin White Paper. (d) Conclusion 488. In my judgment, this document is plainly a clumsy forgery created by Dr Wright. 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 27 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 27 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 25. “Block diffusion within bitcoin” (Reliance Document) {ID_000367} / {L3/185/1} 470. The document purports to be precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper relating to network theory and mentioning “bitcoin”. It is dated to the period 15 August 2008 to 8 September 2008. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 471. The document has been backdated. [PM30 [21-24]]. 472. The document contains content taken from a third-party source available online which was published not before 29 April 2012 (the “2012 ResearchGate Article”). [PM30 [8- 13] 473. The document includes a reference section that closely matches the 2012 ResearchGate Article. However, five references which would have been anachronistic to 2008 have been deleted from the document. Although the five references have been removed from the references section, the main body of the text still mentions 4 out of 5 of them. [PM30 [14-18]]. 474. The document contains text formatted in fonts which are not typical for Microsoft Windows and MS Word documents, but which fonts are included in the 2012 ResearchGate Article. Not only the text, but also its font formatting, has been copied from the 2012 ResearchGate article. [PM30 [19-20]]. 475. The document was created within 1 minute before {ID_000371}, another “Lynn Wright document” bearing independent indicia of tampering. [PM27 [17b]]. 476. ID_00367 has an implausible edit time in excess of 24 days. During that time it was saved only once, implying that it was left unsaved for 34,881 minutes before being saved. [PM30 [5-8]]. 477. The document contains passages of red text and placeholder brackets apparently indicating that the document was in the process of being edited with a view to changing the references, but without that process being finalised before disclosure. [PM30 [24]]. 478. The document was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. The email contains several manipulated documents purported to be in the custody of Lynn Wright. [{ID_003930}, PM30 [1], PM 26 [25-38]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 479. Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 480. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on purported work of the type referred to in this document as “foundational” for Bitcoin. [Wright1 [53-54]]. 481. The effect of the tampering is therefore to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work by Dr Wright on a subject of interest to him, but with reference to Bitcoin), contrary to fact. 482. In these proceedings (and previously), Dr Wright has claimed that his development of Bitcoin was influenced by work on networks as covered by this document. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright1 [54]]. 483. Although the document metadata presents Lynn Wright to have been the only author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright after February 2013, and sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email long after they were separated, contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright relies. The metadata of that zip file is itself also irregular. [{ID_003930}, PM30 [1], PM26 [25-38]]. 484. In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 485. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright sought to explain away the presence of content from the 2012 ResearchGate Article by claiming that he had engaged in academic exchanges in which it was commonplace to share working notes: {CSW/2/36}. When pressed in oral evidence, he doubled down by saying that he had received one or more prior versions of the Chinese academics’ article: {Day2/147:14} to {Day2/153:7}. 486. Dr Wright sought to explain the presence in his document of non-standard fonts which appear in the 2012 ResearchGate Article by saying that they were imported from an unidentified Word document: {CSW/2/39}. 487. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 487.1. The document replicates whole sections from the 2012 ResearchGate Article. Dr Wright’s story therefore assumes that he had an advanced pre-publication paper from Chinese academics working in a field different from his own, and that he had this document years before those academics actually published their work. That is simply incredible. 487.2. Dr Wright has been unable to provide any evidence of ever having had contact with these academics and has not disclosed the supposed pre-publication paper. 487.3. The text which Dr Wright copied contained references to at least four works which themselves post-dated the supposed date of Dr Wright’s document. His story therefore assumes that either (i) the Chinese academics themselves happened to have pre-publication versions of all those other works while they were writing their pre-publication draft or (ii) he himself had pre-publication versions of the other works and happened to cite them in the places where the Chinese academics would later cite them in their own paper. Each of those possibilities beggars belief. 487.4. On Dr Wright’s account, either it’s a coincidence that his document happens to contain non-standard fonts which also feature in the ResearchGate article or the Chinese academics had produced a draft including those fonts years before its ultimate publication. This is another implausible but essential feature of the story. 487.5. On any view, Dr Wright’s document copies extensively from text which appears in the 2012 ResearchGate Article, but it does not reference the Chinese academics whose work is being copied. It is difficult to see why Dr Wright would produce a document in this way for legitimate research purposes. 487.6. Dr Wright’s document is a very strange one, for example because (at p3) it includes a scheme of notations (taken from the 2012 ResearchGate Article) for equations which are themselves omitted. It gives every impression of a work which has been created hastily, based on the 2012 ResearchGate Article, as part of the false trail of supposed academic work leading up to production of the Bitcoin White Paper. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 488. In my judgment, this document is plainly a clumsy forgery created by Dr Wright. 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

COPA Presents Evidence of Forgery in Wright's Bitcoin Network Theory Doc

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 26 of 42. 24. Timecoin ODT Whitepaper (Reliance Document) {ID_000254} 446. The document purports to be a precursor draft of the Bitcoin White Paper and is presented as if written by Dr Wright. It is dated in the period 6 May 2008 to 12 December 2008 in its metadata, and Dr Wright states its approximate date to be 6 May 2008 in his Chain of Custody information. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 447. The document has been backdated. Rather than being a precursor document to the Bitcoin White Paper as it purports to be, this document has been created from the Bitcoin White Paper subsequently and edited in such a way that it appears as if it was precursor work. [PM2 60-64]]. 448. {ID_000254} has apparently been converted from the Bitcoin White Paper (which is a PDF) into a more easily editable format and has then undergone further conversions via intermediate documents [PM2 [60-64]]. Font configurations and the absence of diagrams are consistent with this conclusion [PM2 [17-28]]. No such intermediate document has been disclosed. 449. Diagrams have been omitted from this document as a result of the conversion process from PDF. The inclusion of the object replacement character ￼ within the document [a point where a diagram would be expected to appear is consistent with {ID_000254} being created by a process of conversion of a different document. [PM2 [28]]. 450. Where diagrams are absent, the document nevertheless preserves margin indentations from the Bitcoin White Paper PDF, but which do not match the content of the document. [PM2 [29-37]]. 451. The document irregularly contains words throughout in which hyphens ought to appear but are missing. This is not consistent with ordinary dictation or typing error but is as an artefact of conversion from PDF and backdating. [PM2 [38-44]]. 452. A conversion of the Bitcoin White Paper PDF to editable form would result in corruption of formulae. In each case where those formulae would have appeared corrupted, they have been deleted from {ID_000254}, leaving behind white space. [PM2 [45-48]]. 453. The document contains irregular line breaks consistent with conversion from the Bitcoin White Paper PDF into editable form and backdating. [PM2 [49-51]]. 454. The document contains text that matches the corrected text of the Bitcoin White Paper (2009 version) [PM2 [12]]. It does not match the October 2008 or November 2008 versions of the Bitcoin White Paper, even though this document purports to be earlier than both of them. 455. The document has been disclosed with irregular metadata listed in relation to its Created and Last Accessed external metadata properties. [PM2 [6-11]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 456. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (presenting as a predecessor draft of the Bitcoin White Paper and supposedly written by him in early 2008), contrary to fact. Further, the document uses the same software (OpenOffice Writer) as used by Satoshi Nakamoto. 457. Dr Wright has positively asserted in these proceedings that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 458. The document bears Dr Wright’s name and contact details. 459. The contact details included refer to Charles Sturt University. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has claimed to have drafted and shared versions of the Bitcoin White Paper while studying at Charles Sturt University, and to have discussed the concepts with teaching staff at Charles Sturt University. [Wright1 [87], Wright4 [52]]. 460. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright positively relies upon the presence of the word “Timecoin” in documents he has disclosed as being precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper and thus forming part of the story behind his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Moreover, on the basis of his narrative, this is a detail which would have been known to him and to few, if any, others. [Wright1 [26], Wright4 [6.c.x.]]. 461. The document contains metadata that purports to pre-date the Bitcoin White Paper, indicating efforts at backdating to support Dr Wright’s claim. 462. Dr Wright claims, in his chain of custody information, that only he drafted this document. 463. Dr Wright has stated in these proceedings that this was a draft of a document under the name TimeCoin which later became bitcoin. [Exhibit CSW-5] 464. Dr Wright has not disclosed the apparent intermediate document from which this document was created. [PM2 [63]]. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 465. Dr Wright sought to explain away a number of the anomalous findings by saying that both this document and the Bitcoin White Paper were originally created in LATEX and that the commands in the original code accounted for such features as (a) the notes being in a font which was the same as would later be used for tables in the White Paper; (b) the OBJ character; (c) indentation in empty lines corresponding to the size of flowcharts later featuring in the Bitcoin White Paper; and (d) irregularities in hyphenation. See {CSW/2/26} to {CSW/2/28}; {Day3/139:21} to {Day3/152:8}. 466. Dr Wright sought to explain away the content of the document matching the March 2009 version of the Bitcoin White Paper rather than the earlier released versions by claiming that he does not “write things linearly”. He claimed to have used text in this early document, edited it out again in the August and October 2008 versions of the White Paper and then added it back in again for the March 2009 version. See {CSW/2/28} to {CSW/2/29}; {Day3/153:9} to {Day3/154:10}. 467. Dr Wright sought to explain away the irregular metadata by saying that his use of “Xcopy and related tools” somehow accounted for it: {CSW/2/28}. 468. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 468.1. The Bitcoin White Paper was not originally created in LATEX, as convincingly established by the expert evidence of Mr Rosendahl (which was agreed by Dr Wright’s expert, Mr Lynch, in the joint statement). There is equally no basis for saying that this document was originally created in LATEX. Furthermore, no LAT EX.tex file has been provided to support Dr Wright’s account in relation to the creation of this document. 468.2. The use of LATEX to create the document would not account for the presence of the OBJ (object replacement) character, which on the expert evidence is purely and simply an artefact of conversion from PDF: see PM2 [26-28] {H/17/8}. 468.3. Neither would the use of LATEX to create the document account for Dr Wright having predicted in a precursor document precisely the size required for diagrams and having applied coding to mark out indentations for the diagrams in what would be empty space in the document. 468.4. Neither would the use of LATEX to create the document account for there being irregular hyphenation in precisely the points where line breaks appear in the text of the Bitcoin White Paper. Dr Wright could only weakly account for this as him doing “unusual things” and deliberately including irregular hyphenation {Day3/10:11}. This explanation was nonsensical. Further, it assumed that his deliberate inclusion of irregular hyphenation just happened by coincidence to fall in the places where line breaks existed in the Bitcoin White Paper. 468.5. Dr Wright’s explanation for the irregular metadata was at odds with the independent expert evidence. It also assumed that this irregularity happened by coincidence to co-exist with the other irregularities, when in fact all suggest backdating. 468.6. Dr Wright’s explanation for the content of the document including changes which were made to the Bitcoin White Paper between its 2008 and 2009 versions is inherently unlikely. It also assumes that this irregularity happened by coincidence to co-exist with all the other irregularities, when in fact all suggest backdating. (d) Conclusion 469. The explanations gathered in Appendix 1 to Dr Wright’s Closing confirm his reliance on both this document and the Bitcoin White Paper being based on earlier LATEX files and his allegation that the diagrams were created with LATEX. I find those explanations to be false, in view of my more general finding that the Bitcoin White Paper was not produced in LATEX. Other explanations (the indentations, the supposed ‘steganographic watermarking’ and formatting irregularities) are just a desperate attempt to explain away Dr Wright’s failure to be able to reproduce the Bitcoin White Paper in LATEX. The ‘non-linear’ working explanation (see [468.6] above) is ridiculous, in the light of all the other evidence which clearly indicates that this document was forged by Dr Wright. I so conclude. 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 26 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 26 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 24. Timecoin ODT Whitepaper (Reliance Document) {ID_000254} 446. The document purports to be a precursor draft of the Bitcoin White Paper and is presented as if written by Dr Wright. It is dated in the period 6 May 2008 to 12 December 2008 in its metadata, and Dr Wright states its approximate date to be 6 May 2008 in his Chain of Custody information. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 447. The document has been backdated. Rather than being a precursor document to the Bitcoin White Paper as it purports to be, this document has been created from the Bitcoin White Paper subsequently and edited in such a way that it appears as if it was precursor work. [PM2 60-64]]. 448. {ID_000254} has apparently been converted from the Bitcoin White Paper (which is a PDF) into a more easily editable format and has then undergone further conversions via intermediate documents [PM2 [60-64]]. Font configurations and the absence of diagrams are consistent with this conclusion [PM2 [17-28]]. No such intermediate document has been disclosed. 449. Diagrams have been omitted from this document as a result of the conversion process from PDF. The inclusion of the object replacement character ￼ within the document [a point where a diagram would be expected to appear is consistent with {ID_000254} being created by a process of conversion of a different document. [PM2 [28]]. 450. Where diagrams are absent, the document nevertheless preserves margin indentations from the Bitcoin White Paper PDF, but which do not match the content of the document. [PM2 [29-37]]. 451. The document irregularly contains words throughout in which hyphens ought to appear but are missing. This is not consistent with ordinary dictation or typing error but is as an artefact of conversion from PDF and backdating. [PM2 [38-44]]. 452. A conversion of the Bitcoin White Paper PDF to editable form would result in corruption of formulae. In each case where those formulae would have appeared corrupted, they have been deleted from {ID_000254}, leaving behind white space. [PM2 [45-48]]. 453. The document contains irregular line breaks consistent with conversion from the Bitcoin White Paper PDF into editable form and backdating. [PM2 [49-51]]. 454. The document contains text that matches the corrected text of the Bitcoin White Paper (2009 version) [PM2 [12]]. It does not match the October 2008 or November 2008 versions of the Bitcoin White Paper, even though this document purports to be earlier than both of them. 455. The document has been disclosed with irregular metadata listed in relation to its Created and Last Accessed external metadata properties. [PM2 [6-11]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 456. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (presenting as a predecessor draft of the Bitcoin White Paper and supposedly written by him in early 2008), contrary to fact. Further, the document uses the same software (OpenOffice Writer) as used by Satoshi Nakamoto. 457. Dr Wright has positively asserted in these proceedings that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 458. The document bears Dr Wright’s name and contact details. 459. The contact details included refer to Charles Sturt University. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has claimed to have drafted and shared versions of the Bitcoin White Paper while studying at Charles Sturt University, and to have discussed the concepts with teaching staff at Charles Sturt University. [Wright1 [87], Wright4 [52]]. 460. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright positively relies upon the presence of the word “Timecoin” in documents he has disclosed as being precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper and thus forming part of the story behind his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Moreover, on the basis of his narrative, this is a detail which would have been known to him and to few, if any, others. [Wright1 [26], Wright4 [6.c.x.]]. 461. The document contains metadata that purports to pre-date the Bitcoin White Paper, indicating efforts at backdating to support Dr Wright’s claim. 462. Dr Wright claims, in his chain of custody information, that only he drafted this document. 463. Dr Wright has stated in these proceedings that this was a draft of a document under the name TimeCoin which later became bitcoin. [Exhibit CSW-5] 464. Dr Wright has not disclosed the apparent intermediate document from which this document was created. [PM2 [63]]. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 465. Dr Wright sought to explain away a number of the anomalous findings by saying that both this document and the Bitcoin White Paper were originally created in LATEX and that the commands in the original code accounted for such features as (a) the notes being in a font which was the same as would later be used for tables in the White Paper; (b) the OBJ character; (c) indentation in empty lines corresponding to the size of flowcharts later featuring in the Bitcoin White Paper; and (d) irregularities in hyphenation. See {CSW/2/26} to {CSW/2/28}; {Day3/139:21} to {Day3/152:8}. 466. Dr Wright sought to explain away the content of the document matching the March 2009 version of the Bitcoin White Paper rather than the earlier released versions by claiming that he does not “write things linearly”. He claimed to have used text in this early document, edited it out again in the August and October 2008 versions of the White Paper and then added it back in again for the March 2009 version. See {CSW/2/28} to {CSW/2/29}; {Day3/153:9} to {Day3/154:10}. 467. Dr Wright sought to explain away the irregular metadata by saying that his use of “Xcopy and related tools” somehow accounted for it: {CSW/2/28}. 468. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 468.1. The Bitcoin White Paper was not originally created in LATEX, as convincingly established by the expert evidence of Mr Rosendahl (which was agreed by Dr Wright’s expert, Mr Lynch, in the joint statement). There is equally no basis for saying that this document was originally created in LATEX. Furthermore, no LAT EX.tex file has been provided to support Dr Wright’s account in relation to the creation of this document. 468.2. The use of LATEX to create the document would not account for the presence of the OBJ (object replacement) character, which on the expert evidence is purely and simply an artefact of conversion from PDF: see PM2 [26-28] {H/17/8}. 468.3. Neither would the use of LATEX to create the document account for Dr Wright having predicted in a precursor document precisely the size required for diagrams and having applied coding to mark out indentations for the diagrams in what would be empty space in the document. 468.4. Neither would the use of LATEX to create the document account for there being irregular hyphenation in precisely the points where line breaks appear in the text of the Bitcoin White Paper. Dr Wright could only weakly account for this as him doing “unusual things” and deliberately including irregular hyphenation {Day3/10:11}. This explanation was nonsensical. Further, it assumed that his deliberate inclusion of irregular hyphenation just happened by coincidence to fall in the places where line breaks existed in the Bitcoin White Paper. 468.5. Dr Wright’s explanation for the irregular metadata was at odds with the independent expert evidence. It also assumed that this irregularity happened by coincidence to co-exist with the other irregularities, when in fact all suggest backdating. 468.6. Dr Wright’s explanation for the content of the document including changes which were made to the Bitcoin White Paper between its 2008 and 2009 versions is inherently unlikely. It also assumes that this irregularity happened by coincidence to co-exist with all the other irregularities, when in fact all suggest backdating. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 469. The explanations gathered in Appendix 1 to Dr Wright’s Closing confirm his reliance on both this document and the Bitcoin White Paper being based on earlier LATEX files and his allegation that the diagrams were created with LATEX. I find those explanations to be false, in view of my more general finding that the Bitcoin White Paper was not produced in LATEX. Other explanations (the indentations, the supposed ‘steganographic watermarking’ and formatting irregularities) are just a desperate attempt to explain away Dr Wright’s failure to be able to reproduce the Bitcoin White Paper in LATEX. The ‘non-linear’ working explanation (see [468.6] above) is ridiculous, in the light of all the other evidence which clearly indicates that this document was forged by Dr Wright. I so conclude. 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

COPA Challenges Authenticity of Wright's Timecoin ODT Document

COPA Presents Evidence of Bitcoin White Paper Fabrication by Craig Wright 

Empowerment is widely endorsed. There is consensus that top management should trust teams to solve problems and provide them with the autonomy to achieve goals and milestones. This trust is not just a formality but a recognition of the value and expertise that teams bring to the table. However, the challenge lies in transitioning teams from a feature-factory mentality to a value-driven approach. Development teams often need to prepare for such a shift to gain experience in taking on this level of responsibility. Let's face it: being accountable for outcomes is much more complex than simply delivering fixed tasks with specific features. Despite the increased risk associated with focusing on outcomes, it is far more interesting and exciting for everyone involved. Remember when time used to go much slower when we were kids? Scientists say that is because we explore the world and learn something new daily. Here are some strategies to effectively transition from focusing solely on output to achieving meaningful outcomes. Overcome the feature-centric mindset once and for all. Mindset Difference. For a long time, success was delivering features within deadlines and scope. I excelled at meeting stakeholders’ wants. They were happy with the results, and we were comfortable with how we worked. There was no room for confusion. Everyone understood their tasks and deadlines without problem. Every Sprint followed a similar pattern: features, features, features, a bug fix here and a refactor there, but nothing more. Our primary responsibility was to deliver outputs on time, a task we were adept at fulfilling. However, with the restructuring of the leadership team, expectations shifted. They emphasised achieving goals rather than dictating specific tasks. When they stopped telling us what to do, we panicked. We needed guidance as to where even to start. The questions running through our minds were: Where should we start?
What if we make a wrong decision? Will we be held accountable?
How do we define success now? It was embarrassing. We wanted responsibility and autonomy, and that’s exactly what we got. The real challenge, however, lay in figuring out how to deal with it. We were empowered to achieve goals but needed to prepare for the task. Output vs Outcome. Until then, we had solely concentrated on outputs, completely unaware of the true essence of outcomes. Let’s try to summarise the difference. An output is created for customers to use, such as product recommendations in the e-commerce industry. These recommendations are designed to deliver value. Their outcomes assess the effectiveness of outputs. For instance, when customers add recommended products to their carts, increasing sales represents an outcome. Now, here's the exciting part: Various outputs can achieve outcomes. It's like solving a problem where multiple alternatives exist. When you begin with the outcome in mind, you unlock diverse possibilities and increase your chances of creating significant value. Start small. Getting someone who is already an expert on the topic will make your life much easier. To get where you’ve never been, seek guidance from someone already there! I froze when I first faced true empowerment, and so did everyone else. Despite our attempts to shift focus towards outcomes, our lack of experience inevitably led to failure, as anticipated. We struggled with conducting discovery experiments;
Developers expected precise requirements from me as usual, and;
Stakeholders prioritised feature predictability; The dynamics began to shift when an experienced person joined our team. Instead of overhauling everything at once, we transitioned gradually from focusing on outputs to emphasising outcomes. Our Sprints primarily focused on delivering outputs, with some items oriented towards achieving outcomes. This mixed approach allowed us to change to a new working method gradually. For instance, in one Sprint, we allocated approximately 70% of our capacity to completing a pre-defined integration with partners and 20% to exploring methods to reduce our churn rate. Through this process, we discovered the barriers preventing us from fully embracing the unknown: We hesitated to provide estimates for ambiguous requirements due to past blame for unmet deadlines;
We avoided exploring alternative solutions, fearing the prospect of failure and criticism;
The uncertainty of the unknown made us uneasy as it challenged our accustomed security; Gradually, however, clarity emerged, and we began transforming our work approach. Mindset transformation is required. Transitioning from focusing on output to prioritising outcome is challenging and demanding, as it upends everything you thought you knew about your work methods. With an output mindset, decisions typically revolve around how to deliver predefined features. When a value-driven mindset with a focus on outcomes is an adapter, you need to make decisions frequently—some say even 10 times as many. You must choose problems to solve, find solutions, test them, inspect them, and adapt. It’s more demanding, without a doubt. It also means that you are still working when customers receive the functionality. It is crucial to understand how it works, what they like, how to improve, and how to measure the outcome. So what can help: Coaching: Ask your team questions; do not provide answers. The brains of an entire team have much more computing power than those of a Product Owner or manager;
Problems over solutions: Focus on understanding the problem's context, relevance, and impact before discussing solutions;
Learning over predictability: Prioritizing learning over predictability involves embracing the unknown through frequent small experiments and rapid end-user learning. Understanding what not to build is as crucial as identifying what to make, aiming to create value while minimising waste;
Evidence over opinions: Moreover, decisions should be guided by objective evidence from experiments rather than opinions. This is about having a data-driven mindset; Once you've shifted your mindset to focus on outcomes, the orientation towards achieving meaningful results becomes motivating and inspiring. Every Sprint becomes a different story. So What? Moving from output to outcome is stressful. The burden on your shoulders will be heavy, but you’ll never learn so many new things. Scrum teams yearn for empowerment but can feel overwhelmed when it arrives. Navigate this shift with guidance from experienced mentors and embrace gradual progress. Remember, it's a marathon, not a sprint. Prioritise moving in the right direction over rushing against time. Empowerment is widely endorsed. There is consensus that top management should trust teams to solve problems and provide them with the autonomy to achieve goals and milestones. This trust is not just a formality but a recognition of the value and expertise that teams bring to the table. However, the challenge lies in transitioning teams from a feature-factory mentality to a value-driven approach. Development teams often need to prepare for such a shift to gain experience in taking on this level of responsibility. Let's face it: being accountable for outcomes is much more complex than simply delivering fixed tasks with specific features. Despite the increased risk associated with focusing on outcomes, it is far more interesting and exciting for everyone involved. Remember when time used to go much slower when we were kids? Scientists say that is because we explore the world and learn something new daily. Here are some strategies to effectively transition from focusing solely on output to achieving meaningful outcomes. Overcome the feature-centric mindset once and for all. Mindset Difference. For a long time, success was delivering features within deadlines and scope. I excelled at meeting stakeholders’ wants. They were happy with the results, and we were comfortable with how we worked. There was no room for confusion. Everyone understood their tasks and deadlines without problem. Every Sprint followed a similar pattern: features, features, features, a bug fix here and a refactor there, but nothing more. Our primary responsibility was to deliver outputs on time, a task we were adept at fulfilling. However, with the restructuring of the leadership team, expectations shifted. They emphasised achieving goals rather than dictating specific tasks. When they stopped telling us what to do, we panicked. We needed guidance as to where even to start. The questions running through our minds were: Where should we start? What if we make a wrong decision? Will we be held accountable? How do we define success now? Where should we start? What if we make a wrong decision? Will we be held accountable? How do we define success now? It was embarrassing. We wanted responsibility and autonomy, and that’s exactly what we got. The real challenge, however, lay in figuring out how to deal with it. We were empowered to achieve goals but needed to prepare for the task. Output vs Outcome. Until then, we had solely concentrated on outputs, completely unaware of the true essence of outcomes. Let’s try to summarise the difference. An output is created for customers to use, such as product recommendations in the e-commerce industry. These recommendations are designed to deliver value. Their outcomes assess the effectiveness of outputs. For instance, when customers add recommended products to their carts, increasing sales represents an outcome. Now, here's the exciting part: Various outputs can achieve outcomes. It's like solving a problem where multiple alternatives exist. When you begin with the outcome in mind, you unlock diverse possibilities and increase your chances of creating significant value. Start small. Getting someone who is already an expert on the topic will make your life much easier. To get where you’ve never been, seek guidance from someone already there! I froze when I first faced true empowerment, and so did everyone else. Despite our attempts to shift focus towards outcomes, our lack of experience inevitably led to failure, as anticipated. We struggled with conducting discovery experiments; Developers expected precise requirements from me as usual, and; Stakeholders prioritised feature predictability; We struggled with conducting discovery experiments; Developers expected precise requirements from me as usual, and; Stakeholders prioritised feature predictability; The dynamics began to shift when an experienced person joined our team. Instead of overhauling everything at once, we transitioned gradually from focusing on outputs to emphasising outcomes. Our Sprints primarily focused on delivering outputs, with some items oriented towards achieving outcomes. This mixed approach allowed us to change to a new working method gradually. For instance, in one Sprint, we allocated approximately 70% of our capacity to completing a pre-defined integration with partners and 20% to exploring methods to reduce our churn rate. Through this process, we discovered the barriers preventing us from fully embracing the unknown: We hesitated to provide estimates for ambiguous requirements due to past blame for unmet deadlines; We avoided exploring alternative solutions, fearing the prospect of failure and criticism; The uncertainty of the unknown made us uneasy as it challenged our accustomed security; We hesitated to provide estimates for ambiguous requirements due to past blame for unmet deadlines; We avoided exploring alternative solutions, fearing the prospect of failure and criticism; The uncertainty of the unknown made us uneasy as it challenged our accustomed security; Gradually, however, clarity emerged, and we began transforming our work approach. Mindset transformation is required. Transitioning from focusing on output to prioritising outcome is challenging and demanding, as it upends everything you thought you knew about your work methods. With an output mindset, decisions typically revolve around how to deliver predefined features. When a value-driven mindset with a focus on outcomes is an adapter, you need to make decisions frequently—some say even 10 times as many. You must choose problems to solve, find solutions, test them, inspect them, and adapt. It’s more demanding, without a doubt. It also means that you are still working when customers receive the functionality. It is crucial to understand how it works, what they like, how to improve, and how to measure the outcome. So what can help: Coaching: Ask your team questions; do not provide answers. The brains of an entire team have much more computing power than those of a Product Owner or manager; Problems over solutions: Focus on understanding the problem's context, relevance, and impact before discussing solutions; Learning over predictability: Prioritizing learning over predictability involves embracing the unknown through frequent small experiments and rapid end-user learning. Understanding what not to build is as crucial as identifying what to make, aiming to create value while minimising waste; Evidence over opinions: Moreover, decisions should be guided by objective evidence from experiments rather than opinions. This is about having a data-driven mindset; Coaching: Ask your team questions; do not provide answers. The brains of an entire team have much more computing power than those of a Product Owner or manager; Coaching: Problems over solutions: Focus on understanding the problem's context, relevance, and impact before discussing solutions; Problems over solutions: Learning over predictability: Prioritizing learning over predictability involves embracing the unknown through frequent small experiments and rapid end-user learning. Understanding what not to build is as crucial as identifying what to make, aiming to create value while minimising waste; Learning over predictability: Evidence over opinions: Moreover, decisions should be guided by objective evidence from experiments rather than opinions. This is about having a data-driven mindset; Evidence over opinions: Once you've shifted your mindset to focus on outcomes, the orientation towards achieving meaningful results becomes motivating and inspiring. Every Sprint becomes a different story. So What? Moving from output to outcome is stressful. The burden on your shoulders will be heavy, but you’ll never learn so many new things. Scrum teams yearn for empowerment but can feel overwhelmed when it arrives. Navigate this shift with guidance from experienced mentors and embrace gradual progress. Remember, it's a marathon, not a sprint. Prioritise moving in the right direction over rushing against time.

Stories, News & Mentions about AUCUST

Aucust’s Stories on HackerNoon

Aucust's News & Mentions