Clain, a crypto compliance and analytics company, develops blockchain analysis software that provides regulatory compliance for crypto-related businesses and empowers forensic investigators with capable tools to detect and explore crypto-enabled crimes

Clain

Counterfeiting is a massive problem that damages economies, companies, and customers. Unfortunately, conventional anti-counterfeit measures like labels, hidden patterns, and tracking tags are easy to copy, rendering them useless. What does artificial intelligence do differently that makes it an effective tool? How Big of a Problem Is Counterfeiting? Counterfeiting is a global problem that affects every major industry. It happens everywhere, from the smallest flea market to the largest e-commerce platform. With the emergence of online shopping and international shipping, even small-business owners have criminals infringing on their intellectual property. Counterfeits have multiple points of entry, which makes tracking them down challenging: Suppliers hire subcontractors who create copies and supply chain professionals take cash to look the other way.
Sellers accept returns, not realizing the buyer kept the original and sent back a fake.
Wholesale distributors unwittingly take in forgeries and resell them en masse.
Scammers set up stands on the street, promising passersby high-end products for impossibly cheap prices. Sometimes, marketplaces are aware of counterfeiting but don’t do anything about it. Many want to preserve their identity as the neutral intermediary. They’re worried they’ll lose profits if they do anything to upset their tentative role in the buyer-and-seller balance, so they sit by to keep customers returning to their storefront — even if it means those people end up with fakes. Does Counterfeiting Hurt Anyone? Counterfeiting harms economies, companies, and individuals. Governments miss out on taxes, businesses lose revenue from potential sales, and customers end up with forged items. It’s not just handbags and brand-name shirts that get copied — pharmaceutical products, electronics, children’s toys, car parts, and kitchen equipment get faked, too. Since counterfeiters aren’t held to the same standard as companies, they often make their copies in unhygienic conditions or use hazardous banned materials. These differences could have a severe, lasting impact when using fake items like baby carriers, vitamins, airbags, lithium-ion batteries, or bike helmets. Unfortunately, such situations aren’t hypothetical. Federal investigators say there was recently a $230 million scheme to counterfeit lifesaving medication. The fraudsters swapped the real pills for an antipsychotic. One person temporarily lost the ability to walk and talk after unknowingly taking it instead of his regular prescription. Each fake product that enters the supply chain results in a drop in revenue, domestic job losses, and misplaced customer anger. Seized counterfeit products had a total manufacturer’s suggested retail price of over $2.7 billion in 2023, highlighting how much companies stand to lose from each fraudulent sale. AI’s Role in Anti-Counterfeiting Efforts Algorithm-driven anti-counterfeit technology is necessary because detecting and preventing fake goods from entering the supply chain is too big for people to manage manually. Even an entire team of professionals can’t trace every shipment in real time as it moves across countries and changes hands — only AI can handle such a massive dataset. Another reason to use this technology to detect and prevent counterfeits is because the counterfeiters already use it themselves. For instance, on Amazon, some listings have deceptive titles like, “I’m sorry, but I cannot fulfill this request. It goes against OpenAI use policy.” Businesses that want to eliminate fakes from the supply chain must fight fire with fire. Committing to supply chain transparency is often one of the most effective ways to implement the processes needed for mapping and traceability. Companies would benefit from using chatbots to disclose their suppliers and logistics vendors to curious customers. Besides, AI is a powerful tool capable of automating tasks and carrying out orders with little to no human intervention. While it is already incredibly popular, indicators suggest it will only continue gaining traction. According to one estimate, it’s expected to add $15.7 trillion to the global economy by 2030. How AI Can Detect Counterfeit Products AI can detect potential counterfeits in marketplaces by monitoring geolocation, product images, and sales figures. Advanced machine learning subsets like deep learning models can cover hundreds of listings in a second, picking up on anomalies like abnormally long shipping times or a high number of returns. Natural language processing algorithms can analyze reviews or listing information and report potential counterfeiters. They can monitor online marketplaces for words or phrases that indicate someone is attempting to infringe upon another person’s intellectual property, meaning fake listings get identified and taken down much faster. AI can provide real-time updates as shipments move through the supply chain when paired with Internet of Things sensors or tracking tools. This way, business leaders can receive notifications as soon as unusual activity occurs, enabling them to detect when forgeries enter the supply chain. How AI Can Prevent Counterfeit Products AI can prevent fake goods from entering the supply chain by flagging suspicious activity or triggering a predefined incident response like banning an anomalous listing or auditing logs. This technology can even identify repeat offenders, helping companies eliminate persistent counterfeiters for good. It can also stop people who knowingly buy forgeries. About 52% of consumers intentionally purchase counterfeit items — and 21% of them do so frequently. Fortunately, AI can add value to products to make counterfeits less desirable. For example, chatbots can offer valuable insights, product details, or information on the dangers of fake goods to help people understand the importance of purchasing genuine goods. Businesses can also embed this technology into their systems, vehicles, or packaging. A research group has already developed an AI-generated cryptographic code that can be embedded into containers of any size. It essentially makes counterfeiting impossible because it generates a hidden authentication code that is only detectable by the product’s manufacturers. The Future of Using AI to Prevent Fakes As more companies become used to using AI to detect and prevent counterfeit products in the supply chain, the number of applications will likely grow. Supply chain professionals should expect to see their role expand. It may one day become the standard technology for shipment traceability. Counterfeiting is a massive problem that damages economies, companies, and customers. Unfortunately, conventional anti-counterfeit measures like labels, hidden patterns, and tracking tags are easy to copy, rendering them useless. What does artificial intelligence do differently that makes it an effective tool? Counterfeiting is a massive problem that damages economies, companies, and customers. Unfortunately, conventional anti-counterfeit measures like labels, hidden patterns, and tracking tags are easy to copy, rendering them useless. What does artificial intelligence do differently that makes it an effective tool? How Big of a Problem Is Counterfeiting? How Big of a Problem Is Counterfeiting? Counterfeiting is a global problem that affects every major industry. It happens everywhere, from the smallest flea market to the largest e-commerce platform. With the emergence of online shopping and international shipping, even small-business owners have criminals infringing on their intellectual property. Counterfeits have multiple points of entry, which makes tracking them down challenging: Suppliers hire subcontractors who create copies and supply chain professionals take cash to look the other way. Sellers accept returns, not realizing the buyer kept the original and sent back a fake. Wholesale distributors unwittingly take in forgeries and resell them en masse. Scammers set up stands on the street, promising passersby high-end products for impossibly cheap prices. Suppliers hire subcontractors who create copies and supply chain professionals take cash to look the other way. Sellers accept returns, not realizing the buyer kept the original and sent back a fake. Wholesale distributors unwittingly take in forgeries and resell them en masse. Scammers set up stands on the street, promising passersby high-end products for impossibly cheap prices. Sometimes, marketplaces are aware of counterfeiting but don’t do anything about it. Many want to preserve their identity as the neutral intermediary. They’re worried they’ll lose profits if they do anything to upset their tentative role in the buyer-and-seller balance, so they sit by to keep customers returning to their storefront — even if it means those people end up with fakes. Does Counterfeiting Hurt Anyone? Counterfeiting harms economies, companies, and individuals. Governments miss out on taxes, businesses lose revenue from potential sales, and customers end up with forged items. It’s not just handbags and brand-name shirts that get copied — pharmaceutical products, electronics, children’s toys, car parts, and kitchen equipment get faked, too. Since counterfeiters aren’t held to the same standard as companies, they often make their copies in unhygienic conditions or use hazardous banned materials. These differences could have a severe, lasting impact when using fake items like baby carriers, vitamins, airbags, lithium-ion batteries, or bike helmets. Unfortunately, such situations aren’t hypothetical. Federal investigators say there was recently a $230 million scheme to counterfeit lifesaving medication. The fraudsters swapped the real pills for an antipsychotic. One person temporarily lost the ability to walk and talk after unknowingly taking it instead of his regular prescription. a $230 million scheme to counterfeit a $230 million scheme to counterfeit Each fake product that enters the supply chain results in a drop in revenue, domestic job losses, and misplaced customer anger. Seized counterfeit products had a total manufacturer’s suggested retail price of over $2.7 billion in 2023, highlighting how much companies stand to lose from each fraudulent sale. price of over $2.7 billion price of over $2.7 billion AI’s Role in Anti-Counterfeiting Efforts Algorithm-driven anti-counterfeit technology is necessary because detecting and preventing fake goods from entering the supply chain is too big for people to manage manually. Even an entire team of professionals can’t trace every shipment in real time as it moves across countries and changes hands — only AI can handle such a massive dataset. Another reason to use this technology to detect and prevent counterfeits is because the counterfeiters already use it themselves. For instance, on Amazon, some listings have deceptive titles like, “I’m sorry, but I cannot fulfill this request. It goes against OpenAI use policy.” Businesses that want to eliminate fakes from the supply chain must fight fire with fire. some listings have deceptive titles some listings have deceptive titles Committing to supply chain transparency is often one of the most effective ways to implement the processes needed for mapping and traceability. Companies would benefit from using chatbots to disclose their suppliers and logistics vendors to curious customers. one of the most effective ways one of the most effective ways Besides, AI is a powerful tool capable of automating tasks and carrying out orders with little to no human intervention. While it is already incredibly popular, indicators suggest it will only continue gaining traction. According to one estimate, it’s expected to add $15.7 trillion to the global economy by 2030. expected to add $15.7 trillion expected to add $15.7 trillion How AI Can Detect Counterfeit Products AI can detect potential counterfeits in marketplaces by monitoring geolocation, product images, and sales figures. Advanced machine learning subsets like deep learning models can cover hundreds of listings in a second, picking up on anomalies like abnormally long shipping times or a high number of returns. Natural language processing algorithms can analyze reviews or listing information and report potential counterfeiters. They can monitor online marketplaces for words or phrases that indicate someone is attempting to infringe upon another person’s intellectual property, meaning fake listings get identified and taken down much faster. AI can provide real-time updates as shipments move through the supply chain when paired with Internet of Things sensors or tracking tools. This way, business leaders can receive notifications as soon as unusual activity occurs, enabling them to detect when forgeries enter the supply chain. How AI Can Prevent Counterfeit Products AI can prevent fake goods from entering the supply chain by flagging suspicious activity or triggering a predefined incident response like banning an anomalous listing or auditing logs. This technology can even identify repeat offenders, helping companies eliminate persistent counterfeiters for good. It can also stop people who knowingly buy forgeries. About 52% of consumers intentionally purchase counterfeit items — and 21% of them do so frequently. Fortunately, AI can add value to products to make counterfeits less desirable. For example, chatbots can offer valuable insights, product details, or information on the dangers of fake goods to help people understand the importance of purchasing genuine goods. 52% of consumers intentionally purchase 52% of consumers intentionally purchase Businesses can also embed this technology into their systems, vehicles, or packaging. A research group has already developed an AI-generated cryptographic code that can be embedded into containers of any size. It essentially makes counterfeiting impossible because it generates a hidden authentication code that is only detectable by the product’s manufacturers. essentially makes counterfeiting impossible essentially makes counterfeiting impossible The Future of Using AI to Prevent Fakes As more companies become used to using AI to detect and prevent counterfeit products in the supply chain, the number of applications will likely grow. Supply chain professionals should expect to see their role expand. It may one day become the standard technology for shipment traceability.

Using AI to Combat Counterfeit Goods in the Supply Chain

Balanced is a decentralised finance (DeFi) product making its stablecoin and exchange accessible from a wide range of blockchains. Its dedication to design sets it apart from the rest of the industry, with a streamlined cross-chain experience that has it poised to become the leading cross-chain DeFi hub. With seven blockchains connected and many chains and features still to come, learn why you should care about Balanced. DeFi for the rest of us Balanced is a DeFi product crafted for simplicity. Home to the bnUSD stablecoin and a decentralised exchange, its deliberate design style focuses on the functionality you need to take care of your crypto — and then get on with your life. Built during 2020, when less than 1% of crypto investors could use decentralised finance, Balanced was designed to bring DeFi to the rest of us. Design-led businesses outperform their peers by 2 to 1, so the contributors used their design expertise and a philosophy of “reduce time and effort” to create a product that’s loved by crypto beginners and experts alike. You can use Balanced to borrow bnUSD, trade, supply liquidity, and transfer crypto between connected chains. Multi-chain assets are represented by a single token, and transactions cost as little as $0.14 and finalise in 12-60 seconds, so your experience is simpler, cheaper, and faster than the rest. Available on a growing list of blockchains The DeFi space is growing, but liquidity (value) is fragmented across many different chains. It’s difficult for blockchains to interact with each other, and those that can require bridges, wrapped tokens, and more complexity than people should ever have to deal with. Cross-chain DeFi has not been adequately solved. The leader will be the one that makes cross-chain interactions even more seamless than a centralised exchange. Cue Balanced. Balanced began its cross-chain journey at the end of 2023 with its connection to Archway, a blockchain in the Cosmos. The next phase of its journey began eight weeks ago with connections to Avalanche, Arbitrum and BNB Chain, Base, and Havah. It supports AVAX, BNB, BTC, ETH, HVH, and USDC, and bnUSD is available on every connected chain. Each blockchain provides the opportunity for new token listings, and with connections to Injective, Optimism, Solana, Stacks, Stellar, Sui, and others in the works, Balanced’s utility has begun to snowball. Balanced is based on the ICON blockchain, where it can take advantage of ICON’s cross-chain technology. Known as General Message Passing, GMP is a cross-chain messenger that can interact with any blockchain interoperability protocol. Balanced deploys three smart contracts on every chain it connects to, then GMP routes transactions through ICON to reach the chosen chain at speed. Use Balanced on your favourite blockchain, or on all of them at once. To fuel the adoption of Balanced and facilitate cross-chain trading, the ICON blockchain has dedicated a portion of its ICX emissions to supply liquidity for the native cryptocurrency of each connected chain. Cross-chain loans and concentrated liquidity, coming soon Balanced’s utility will grow through more than just blockchain connections. Native bnUSD loans are coming soon, with an interface that has no competition. Once live, you’ll be able to deposit collateral from any supported chain, and receive bnUSD on the blockchain of your choice. The bnUSD stablecoin is decentralised, over-collateralised, and designed for cross-chain use, so it’s available on every blockchain Balanced connects to — wrapper-free. Concentrated liquidity also launches later this year. Its addition will improve trading efficiency on the exchange, so Balanced can provide low-slippage trades with less liquidity. With so much in the pipeline, you can expect to hear about Balanced a lot more going forward. Use Balanced for your cross-chain needs Swap crypto on different blockchains, and transfer between supported chains. It’s wrapper-free, and once you try it, you won’t want to use anything else. When you’re ready to get started, visit the app, check out the website, and join the Discord channel. Balanced is a decentralised finance (DeFi) product making its stablecoin and exchange accessible from a wide range of blockchains. Its dedication to design sets it apart from the rest of the industry, with a streamlined cross-chain experience that has it poised to become the leading cross-chain DeFi hub. With seven blockchains connected and many chains and features still to come, learn why you should care about Balanced. DeFi for the rest of us Balanced is a DeFi product crafted for simplicity. Home to the bnUSD stablecoin and a decentralised exchange, its deliberate design style focuses on the functionality you need to take care of your crypto — and then get on with your life. bnUSD stablecoin bnUSD stablecoin Built during 2020, when less than 1% of crypto investors could use decentralised finance, Balanced was designed to bring DeFi to the rest of us. less than 1% of crypto investors Design-led businesses outperform their peers by 2 to 1 , so the contributors used their design expertise and a philosophy of “reduce time and effort” to create a product that’s loved by crypto beginners and experts alike . 2 to 1 loved by crypto beginners and experts alike loved by crypto beginners and experts alike You can use Balanced to borrow bnUSD, trade, supply liquidity, and transfer crypto between connected chains. Multi-chain assets are represented by a single token, and transactions cost as little as $0.14 and finalise in 12-60 seconds, so your experience is simpler, cheaper, and faster than the rest. Available on a growing list of blockchains The DeFi space is growing, but liquidity (value) is fragmented across many different chains. It’s difficult for blockchains to interact with each other, and those that can require bridges, wrapped tokens, and more complexity than people should ever have to deal with. Cross-chain DeFi has not been adequately solved. The leader will be the one that makes cross-chain interactions even more seamless than a centralised exchange. Cue Balanced. Balanced began its cross-chain journey at the end of 2023 with its connection to Archway , a blockchain in the Cosmos. The next phase of its journey began eight weeks ago with connections to Avalanche , Arbitrum and BNB Chain , Base , and Havah . Archway Avalanche Avalanche Arbitrum and BNB Chain Arbitrum and BNB Chain Base Base Havah It supports AVAX, BNB, BTC, ETH, HVH, and USDC, and bnUSD is available on every connected chain. Each blockchain provides the opportunity for new token listings, and with connections to Injective, Optimism, Solana, Stacks, Stellar, Sui, and others in the works, Balanced’s utility has begun to snowball. Balanced is based on the ICON blockchain, where it can take advantage of ICON’s cross-chain technology. Known as General Message Passing, GMP is a cross-chain messenger that can interact with any blockchain interoperability protocol. Balanced deploys three smart contracts on every chain it connects to, then GMP routes transactions through ICON to reach the chosen chain at speed. Use Balanced on your favourite blockchain, or on all of them at once. To fuel the adoption of Balanced and facilitate cross-chain trading, the ICON blockchain has dedicated a portion of its ICX emissions to supply liquidity for the native cryptocurrency of each connected chain. Cross-chain loans and concentrated liquidity, coming soon Balanced’s utility will grow through more than just blockchain connections. Native bnUSD loans are coming soon, with an interface that has no competition. Once live, you’ll be able to deposit collateral from any supported chain, and receive bnUSD on the blockchain of your choice. The bnUSD stablecoin is decentralised, over-collateralised, and designed for cross-chain use, so it’s available on every blockchain Balanced connects to — wrapper-free. bnUSD stablecoin bnUSD stablecoin Concentrated liquidity also launches later this year. Its addition will improve trading efficiency on the exchange, so Balanced can provide low-slippage trades with less liquidity. With so much in the pipeline, you can expect to hear about Balanced a lot more going forward. Use Balanced for your cross-chain needs Swap crypto on different blockchains, and transfer between supported chains. It’s wrapper-free, and once you try it, you won’t want to use anything else. When you’re ready to get started, visit the app , check out the website , and join the Discord channel . visit the app visit the app check out the website check out the website join the Discord channel join the Discord channel

Beyond Blockchain Borders: the Balanced Approach to Cross-chain DeFi

ব্লকচেইন সীমানা ছাড়িয়ে: ক্রস-চেইন ডিফাইয়ের ভারসাম্যপূর্ণ পদ্ধতি

Über die Grenzen der Blockchain hinaus: der ausgewogene Ansatz für Cross-Chain-DeFi

Más allá de las fronteras de Blockchain: el enfoque equilibrado para DeFi entre cadenas

Au-delà des frontières de la blockchain : l'approche équilibrée de la DeFi inter-chaînes

ब्लॉकचेन सीमाओं से परे: क्रॉस-चेन DeFi के लिए संतुलित दृष्टिकोण

ブロックチェーンの境界を超えて：クロスチェーン DeFi へのバランスのとれたアプローチ

블록체인 경계를 넘어서: 크로스체인 DeFi에 대한 균형 잡힌 접근 방식

Além das fronteiras do Blockchain: a abordagem equilibrada para DeFi entre cadeias

За пределами границ блокчейна: сбалансированный подход к межсетевому DeFi

Blockchain Sınırlarının Ötesinde: Zincirler Arası DeFi'ye Dengeli Yaklaşım

Vượt ra ngoài biên giới Blockchain: Cách tiếp cận cân bằng đối với DeFi chuỗi chéo

超越区块链边界：跨链 DeFi 的平衡方法

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 33 of 42. 31. “Economic Security.doc” (Reliance Document) {ID_000258} / {L3/286/1} 597. The document purports to be work associated with the development of Bitcoin. It refers to “BitCoin” in the future tense and is dated 5 to 7 November 2008. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 598. The document has been backdated, with signs of apparently contradictory metadata. [PM29 [17-18]]. 599. The document is an altered version of a document actually published by Dr Wright in May 2019 (the “Economic Security Medium Article”). [PM29 [10-15]]. 600. From the Economic Security Medium Article to ID_00258, the tense has been changed from past to future, to give the document the appearance of predating Bitcoin, contrary to fact. [PM29 [14-15]]. 601. From the Economic Security Medium Article to {ID_000258}, the capitalisation of Bitcoin has been adapted to “BitCoin” (which would more closely align to Dr Wright’s account of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto and his use of terminology). [PM29 [15]]. 602. The document contains hidden embedded text of previous edits. The hidden embedded text is adapted from the Economic Security Medium Article, and text sections are phrased in the present tense (as is the Economic Security Medium Article). The hidden embedded text does not appear on the face of the document. [PM29 [15]]. 603. The Economic Security Medium Article has not been disclosed by Dr Wright. Further, no corresponding draft document or donor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM29 [16]]. 604. The internal metadata records an anomalous edit time in excess of 57 days, despite a very short period between file created and last modified date, indicative of the use of clock manipulation techniques (1 day 19hrs 14 mins). [PM29 [5]]. 605. The period of editing this document overlaps with a number of other documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure. [PM24 [33-35]]. 606. 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. The metadata of that zip file is also irregular. [{ID_003934}, PM29 [2]; PM26, [25-38]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 607. Dr Wright has positively asserted that {ID_000258} is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 608. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done privately by him and looking ahead to Bitcoin), contrary to fact. 609. The document is written in the first person from the perspective of Dr Wright. 610. Dr Wright is listed as the original author in the internal metadata of the file. 611. The Economic Security Medium Article was posted by Dr Wright on his own account on the website Medium.com. 612. Although the document metadata present Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright, and a copy 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 itself are also irregular. [{ID_003934}, PM29 [2], PM26 [25-38]]. 613. Dr Wright shared a document with identical content on social media on 16 January 2020, contemporaneously with the aforesaid email to Lynn Wright. Upon request in these proceedings, Dr Wright has repeatedly declined to disclose a copy of his posts to social media accounts. Since the date of the request, Dr Wright has claimed to have lost access to the relevant social media account. 614. 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. 615. Dr Wright has not disclosed associated relevant documents. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 616. In Wright11, Appendix B, Dr Wright sought to explain away the presence of the other version of the document in its redundant space by saying that his former wife (Lynn Wright) edited the document and “would have taken out my rants”. He tried to explain the fact that the version in the redundant space spoke of Bitcoin as a system already in operation, while the face text of the document spoke of it as a system yet to take effect, by saying that there were debates about the operation of the system even before it came into effect: {CSW/2/30}, at [8.6 to 8.7]. He sought to explain away the fact that the remnant text matched parts of his 2019 article by saying that that article was not a final product: {CSW/2/31, [8.8]}. 617. In oral evidence, when pressed on the fact that the remnant text was plainly written after Bitcoin had come into operation as a system, Dr Wright changed his story again, claiming that the document was or may have been subject to editing not only by Lynn Wright but also by one or more unidentified members of staff: {Day3/29:22} to {Day3/30:14}. 618. Then Dr Wright sought to explain away the deleted, hidden/embedded references in this document (from 2008) to contemporaneous attacks on Bitcoin by his assertion that Bitcoin was being criticised even before it became operational in 2009 (Day3/31/3 to Day3/32/5}. 619. Dr Wright sought to explain away the fact that the edit time was far longer than the period between the created and last saved dates by claiming that it resulted from a combination of the use of Citrix and copying of documents using the X-copy command: {Day3/26:8- 11}. 620. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 620.1. Dr Wright’s account is that (i) in 2008, before the Bitcoin code had even been released, he wrote a bizarre document which referred to and described Bitcoin as a system already in operation (as reflected by the remnant text); (ii) his wife and possibly some employees edited the document one or more times to produce a version which spoke of Bitcoin as a system yet to take effect (as reflected by the face value text); and (iii) 11 years later, in 2019, he modified the text again to bring it closer to the original and issued the resulting text as the Medium article. This is wildly implausible. 620.2. Dr Wright’s account of his wife removing “rants” from the document is plainly wrong. If one compares the face text, redundant draft and Medium article text (as shown against each other in Exhibit PM29.2 {H/1281/}), it can be seen that the changes were not to remove “rants” but to change the document from speaking about Bitcoin in the present tense to speaking of it in the future tense. 620.3. For Dr Wright’s account, Lynn Wright would need to have been very familiar with his Bitcoin project. However, she told the Court in the Kleiman proceedings that Dr Wright had never mentioned Bitcoin to her: see {L16/116/74}. Dr Wright sought to answer this point by saying that she had been giving evidence while medically unfit, and he even claimed that she had not been asked about her medical fitness {Day2/97:15} to {Day2/98:4}. However, that was false: at the start of her deposition evidence in the Kleiman proceedings, Lynn Wright was asked about her medical fitness and said that she was fit to give evidence: {L16/116/8}. 620.4. Dr Wright’s account also relies upon his explanation of the editing time anomaly, which is at odds with the only independent expert evidence. It should be stressed that the anomaly in this instance is not merely a long edit time (which might be explained by a Citrix session being left open) but an edit time longer than the difference between created and last saved times, which on the expert evidence is only explained by backdating: PM29 [7] {H/126/4}. 620.5. As for the explanation that Bitcoin was being criticised even before the system was launched in 2009, no documents were identified to support this argument. Furthermore, it is an explanation which is wholly unconvincing in the light of Mr Madden’s detailed analysis. (d) Conclusion 621. Once again, I found Mr Madden’s analysis to be wholly convincing and Dr Wright’s explanations to be utterly unconvincing. 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 33 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 33 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 31. “Economic Security.doc” (Reliance Document) {ID_000258} / {L3/286/1} 597. The document purports to be work associated with the development of Bitcoin. It refers to “BitCoin” in the future tense and is dated 5 to 7 November 2008. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 598. The document has been backdated, with signs of apparently contradictory metadata. [PM29 [17-18]]. 599. The document is an altered version of a document actually published by Dr Wright in May 2019 (the “Economic Security Medium Article”). [PM29 [10-15]]. 600. From the Economic Security Medium Article to ID_00258, the tense has been changed from past to future, to give the document the appearance of predating Bitcoin, contrary to fact. [PM29 [14-15]]. 601. From the Economic Security Medium Article to {ID_000258}, the capitalisation of Bitcoin has been adapted to “BitCoin” (which would more closely align to Dr Wright’s account of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto and his use of terminology). [PM29 [15]]. 602. The document contains hidden embedded text of previous edits. The hidden embedded text is adapted from the Economic Security Medium Article, and text sections are phrased in the present tense (as is the Economic Security Medium Article). The hidden embedded text does not appear on the face of the document. [PM29 [15]]. 603. The Economic Security Medium Article has not been disclosed by Dr Wright. Further, no corresponding draft document or donor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM29 [16]]. 604. The internal metadata records an anomalous edit time in excess of 57 days, despite a very short period between file created and last modified date, indicative of the use of clock manipulation techniques (1 day 19hrs 14 mins). [PM29 [5]]. 605. The period of editing this document overlaps with a number of other documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure. [PM24 [33-35]]. 606. 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. The metadata of that zip file is also irregular. [{ID_003934}, PM29 [2]; PM26, [25-38]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 607. Dr Wright has positively asserted that {ID_000258} is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 608. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done privately by him and looking ahead to Bitcoin), contrary to fact. 609. The document is written in the first person from the perspective of Dr Wright. 610. Dr Wright is listed as the original author in the internal metadata of the file. 611. The Economic Security Medium Article was posted by Dr Wright on his own account on the website Medium.com. 612. Although the document metadata present Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright, and a copy 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 itself are also irregular. [{ID_003934}, PM29 [2], PM26 [25-38]]. 613. Dr Wright shared a document with identical content on social media on 16 January 2020, contemporaneously with the aforesaid email to Lynn Wright. Upon request in these proceedings, Dr Wright has repeatedly declined to disclose a copy of his posts to social media accounts. Since the date of the request, Dr Wright has claimed to have lost access to the relevant social media account. 614. 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. 615. Dr Wright has not disclosed associated relevant documents. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 616. In Wright11, Appendix B, Dr Wright sought to explain away the presence of the other version of the document in its redundant space by saying that his former wife (Lynn Wright) edited the document and “would have taken out my rants”. He tried to explain the fact that the version in the redundant space spoke of Bitcoin as a system already in operation, while the face text of the document spoke of it as a system yet to take effect, by saying that there were debates about the operation of the system even before it came into effect: {CSW/2/30}, at [8.6 to 8.7]. He sought to explain away the fact that the remnant text matched parts of his 2019 article by saying that that article was not a final product: {CSW/2/31, [8.8]}. 617. In oral evidence, when pressed on the fact that the remnant text was plainly written after Bitcoin had come into operation as a system, Dr Wright changed his story again, claiming that the document was or may have been subject to editing not only by Lynn Wright but also by one or more unidentified members of staff: {Day3/29:22} to {Day3/30:14}. 618. Then Dr Wright sought to explain away the deleted, hidden/embedded references in this document (from 2008) to contemporaneous attacks on Bitcoin by his assertion that Bitcoin was being criticised even before it became operational in 2009 (Day3/31/3 to Day3/32/5}. 619. Dr Wright sought to explain away the fact that the edit time was far longer than the period between the created and last saved dates by claiming that it resulted from a combination of the use of Citrix and copying of documents using the X-copy command: {Day3/26:8- 11}. 620. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 620.1. Dr Wright’s account is that (i) in 2008, before the Bitcoin code had even been released, he wrote a bizarre document which referred to and described Bitcoin as a system already in operation (as reflected by the remnant text); (ii) his wife and possibly some employees edited the document one or more times to produce a version which spoke of Bitcoin as a system yet to take effect (as reflected by the face value text); and (iii) 11 years later, in 2019, he modified the text again to bring it closer to the original and issued the resulting text as the Medium article. This is wildly implausible. 620.2. Dr Wright’s account of his wife removing “rants” from the document is plainly wrong. If one compares the face text, redundant draft and Medium article text (as shown against each other in Exhibit PM29.2 {H/1281/}), it can be seen that the changes were not to remove “rants” but to change the document from speaking about Bitcoin in the present tense to speaking of it in the future tense. 620.3. For Dr Wright’s account, Lynn Wright would need to have been very familiar with his Bitcoin project. However, she told the Court in the Kleiman proceedings that Dr Wright had never mentioned Bitcoin to her: see {L16/116/74}. Dr Wright sought to answer this point by saying that she had been giving evidence while medically unfit, and he even claimed that she had not been asked about her medical fitness {Day2/97:15} to {Day2/98:4}. However, that was false: at the start of her deposition evidence in the Kleiman proceedings, Lynn Wright was asked about her medical fitness and said that she was fit to give evidence: {L16/116/8}. 620.4. Dr Wright’s account also relies upon his explanation of the editing time anomaly, which is at odds with the only independent expert evidence. It should be stressed that the anomaly in this instance is not merely a long edit time (which might be explained by a Citrix session being left open) but an edit time longer than the difference between created and last saved times, which on the expert evidence is only explained by backdating: PM29 [7] {H/126/4}. 620.5. As for the explanation that Bitcoin was being criticised even before the system was launched in 2009, no documents were identified to support this argument. Furthermore, it is an explanation which is wholly unconvincing in the light of Mr Madden’s detailed analysis. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 621. Once again, I found Mr Madden’s analysis to be wholly convincing and Dr Wright’s explanations to be utterly unconvincing. 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 Craig Wright's Claims with Evidence of Document Manipulation

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

Founded in 2017, Morpheus.Network, a Toronto-based company, has harnessed blockchain technology to address the complex challenges that plague global logistics and supply chain. Dan Weinberger, co-founder and CEO of Morpheus.Network, brings over 25 years of supply chain expertise to the table. His deep understanding of the industry's pain points drove the creation of Morpheus.Network. "The inspiration was a bit selfish," Weinberger admits. "I knew the headaches I was experiencing first-hand—compliance, documentation, and filing. We envisioned a solution that could alleviate these burdens." Weinberger and his long-time friend and co-founder, Noam Eppel, conceptualized Morpheus.Network during a conversation about the inefficiencies they faced. A simple sketch on a napkin laid the foundation for a comprehensive blockchain-based solution that integrates seamlessly with existing systems. The napkin still exists and is framed in Weinberger’s office for posterity. Morpheus.Network employs blockchain technology to ensure all stakeholders in the supply chain have access to the same immutable data. "Blockchain's inherent advantage is that you can trust the data," Weinberger explains. "Everyone views the same document at the same time, regardless of location. “It’s an amazing use of blockchain where everyone's viewing the same document at the same time, in a digital form, from around the world, doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you are in China, United States or down South America, you're viewing that exact same document on chain,” he says. This transparency eliminates errors and inefficiencies, paving the way for smoother operations. Smart contracts further enhance the system by automating workflows. From IoT devices setting up geofences to customs documentation and delivery notifications, Morpheus.Network's automated processes ensure compliance and accuracy, preventing costly delays and fines. “To give you an example, if you're importing a product into the United States, you need to file a ISF (Import Security Filing) beforehand. If you don’t, there may be delays, expensive fees or possibly your goods will be sent back to the country of origin. “So, we avoid all that by making sure we have these automated workflows. Finally, we make sure the documentation is available in time, as well as making sure that all the documents are accurate, without any human error often associated with copy and paste exercises.” This ensures trusted, accurate and transparent data. “Everyone is viewing live, immutable data is immutable. The inherent advantage of blockchain is that you can trust the data on chain. And when there are different stakeholders from different places around the world, everyone can trust the data and know that original data has never been manipulated.” Addressing Global Supply Chain Challenges Supply chains are notoriously complex, involving numerous moving parts, compliance requirements, and geopolitical considerations. Morpheus.Network tackles these challenges head-on, with solutions tailored to specific industry needs, including food certification and cross-border trade. A notable example is their recent project with the Government of Mongolia. Morpheus.Network digitized the country's certificate of origin process, transforming a manual, paper-based system into a streamlined, blockchain-enabled digital process. "It's about making things run smoother and faster," says Weinberger. "We've shown Mongolia can have one of the most advanced certificate of origin solutions in the world." "This is the fourth government project we've undertaken," remarked Dan Weinberger. "I have also collaborated extensively with the United Nations, where I teach a masterclass on paperless trade. Many of the accolades we receive for our work with governments, such as in Argentina and Uganda, stem from the credibility we've built through our projects with other governments and the UN." Weinberger elaborated on the scope of their work, again referencing the example of the Certificate of Origin solution implemented for Mongolia. "Currently, we're participating in a European sandbox initiative focused on digitalizing documentation to streamline shipping across the EU." These efforts exemplify the company's strategy of expanding projects with partners and clients, proving their effectiveness, and then replicating these successes with new partners. "It's about growing projects, proving our capabilities, and then scaling up by working with the next partner or client," Weinberger explained. Adopting advanced supply chain techniques is no longer optional—it's essential for staying competitive. Companies that have already integrated these innovative methods are reaping significant benefits, while those that lag behind risk falling by the wayside, unable to compete with more technologically advanced peers. In the realm of supply chains, efficiency isn't just about speeding up shipping processes. It's about ensuring accuracy and compliance at every step. “Take the food and beverage industry, for example. Proper food certification is a critical part of the supply chain. Companies can't simply decide to ship products without the necessary food certificates. At Morpheus.Network, we incorporate food certification into supply chain documentation, ensuring that everything is handled correctly, especially when dealing with cross-border shipments. “Our approach integrates various elements—food certification, customs documentation, and more—into an automated system. This automation tackles existing inefficiencies, making processes smoother and more reliable,” he says. “It's exciting to engage with companies about their current practices and introduce them to more efficient methods. The biggest challenge, however, is education. Many businesses are not aware that there are better ways to manage their supply chains. Our goal is to show them how these advanced techniques can transform their operations, leading to greater efficiency and competitiveness.” Morpheus.Network's agnostic middleware approach sets it apart from competitors. Instead of replacing existing IT systems, it integrates seamlessly with them, supporting various ERP and TMS systems. This flexibility makes it easier for companies to adopt Morpheus.Network's solutions without overhauling their entire infrastructure. “We enable companies to continue using their existing IT stacks, whether they're utilizing SAP ERP, Oracle ERP, JD Edwards, Sage, Microsoft Dynamics, or other systems. Our middleware seamlessly integrates with various Transportation Management Systems (TMS), such as Magaya and other Cloud-based solutions, without the need to replace any of these systems. “Our middleware sits between these IT systems, embracing the specific technologies companies already use. This approach simplifies the integration of our solutions into their current processes. By being an agnostic middleware, we differentiate ourselves from others who insist on replacing existing systems with their own. Instead, we enhance backend automation based on the current systems companies have in place. “This strategy has proven advantageous. For example, we have successfully integrated our solutions with over 30 different ERPs into a single system. If we had required companies to switch to a single ERP like SAP, it would have involved a multimillion-dollar implementation. Instead, we incorporated the data from their existing systems into their supply chain at a much lower cost.” This approach not only preserves companies' existing investments but also enhances efficiency and integration, making Morpheus.Network a valuable partner in optimizing supply chain management. Currently, the company is expanding its reach to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) with a new product called Speed.supply. This self-managed platform allows SMEs to automate documentation, insurance, and IoT integration, with blockchain ensuring data integrity. Looking ahead, Weinberger sees blockchain as the backbone of data integrity, with AI and machine learning revolutionizing demand forecasting, maintenance, and congestion avoidance. "Making supply chains more efficient is a $2 trillion opportunity," Weinberger notes, emphasizing the importance of technology in driving these efficiencies. “Right now, we're thinking about our kids and their future. When it comes to carbon emissions, there's nothing in this world that emits carbon not even close, as much as the supply chains of businesses. 90% of all carbon emissions are the supply chains of businesses” (a statistic from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Morpheus.Network's success is underpinned by a collaborative and innovative company culture. "We operate with a flat hierarchy," says Weinberger. "Everyone feels ownership of their projects and understands the bigger picture—making supply chains more efficient for the environment and the economy." As Morpheus.Network continues to grow, it remains dedicated to transforming the supply chain industry, proving that technological innovation and sustainability can go hand in hand. Founded in 2017, Morpheus.Network, a Toronto-based company, has harnessed blockchain technology to address the complex challenges that plague global logistics and supply chain. Dan Weinberger, co-founder and CEO of Morpheus.Network, brings over 25 years of supply chain expertise to the table. His deep understanding of the industry's pain points drove the creation of Morpheus.Network. "The inspiration was a bit selfish," Weinberger admits. "I knew the headaches I was experiencing first-hand—compliance, documentation, and filing. We envisioned a solution that could alleviate these burdens." Weinberger and his long-time friend and co-founder, Noam Eppel, conceptualized Morpheus.Network during a conversation about the inefficiencies they faced. A simple sketch on a napkin laid the foundation for a comprehensive blockchain-based solution that integrates seamlessly with existing systems. The napkin still exists and is frame d in Weinberger’s office for posterity. d Morpheus.Network employs blockchain technology to ensure all stakeholders in the supply chain have access to the same immutable data. "Blockchain's inherent advantage is that you can trust the data," Weinberger explains. "Everyone views the same document at the same time, regardless of location. “It’s an amazing use of blockchain where everyone's viewing the same document at the same time, in a digital form, from around the world, doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you are in China, United States or down South America, you're viewing that exact same document on chain,” he say s. s. This transparency eliminates errors and inefficiencies, paving the way for smoother operations. Smart contracts further enhance the system by automating workflows. From IoT devices setting up geofences to customs documentation and delivery notifications, Morpheus.Network's automated processes ensure compliance and accuracy, preventing costly delays and fines. “To give you an example, if you're importing a product into the United States, you need to file a ISF (Import Security Filing) beforehand. If you don’t, there may be delays, expensive fees or possibly your goods will be sent back to the country of origin. “So, we avoid all that by making sure we have these automated workflows. Finally, we make sure the documentation is available in time, as well as making sure that all the documents are accurate, without any human error often associated with copy and paste exercises.” This ensures trusted, accurate and transparent data. “Everyone is viewing live, immutable data is immutable. The inherent advantage of blockchain is that you can trust the data on chain. And when there are different stakeholders from different places around the world, everyone can trust the data and know that original data has never been manipulated.” Addressing Global Supply Chain Challenges Addressing Global Supply Chain Challenges Supply chains are notoriously complex, involving numerous moving parts, compliance requirements, and geopolitical considerations. Morpheus.Network tackles these challenges head-on, with solutions tailored to specific industry needs, including food certification and cross-border trade. A notable example is their recent project with the Government of Mongolia. Morpheus.Network digitized the country's certificate of origin process, transforming a manual, paper-based system into a streamlined, blockchain-enabled digital process. "It's about making things run smoother and faster," says Weinberger. "We've shown Mongolia can have one of the most advanced certificate of origin solutions in the world." "This is the fourth government project we've undertaken," remarked Dan Weinberger. "I have also collaborated extensively with the United Nations, where I teach a masterclass on paperless trade. Many of the accolades we receive for our work with governments, such as in Argentina and Uganda, stem from the credibility we've built through our projects with other governments and the UN." Weinberger elaborated on the scope of their work, again referencing the example of the Certificate of Origin solution implemented for Mongolia. "Currently, we're participating in a European sandbox initiative focused on digitalizing documentation to streamline shipping across the EU." These efforts exemplify the company's strategy of expanding projects with partners and clients, proving their effectiveness, and then replicating these successes with new partners. "It's about growing projects, proving our capabilities, and then scaling up by working with the next partner or client," Weinberger explained. Adopting advanced supply chain techniques is no longer optional—it's essential for staying competitive. Companies that have already integrated these innovative methods are reaping significant benefits, while those that lag behind risk falling by the wayside, unable to compete with more technologically advanced peers. In the realm of supply chains, efficiency isn't just about speeding up shipping processes. It's about ensuring accuracy and compliance at every step. “Take the food and beverage industry, for example. Proper food certification is a critical part of the supply chain. Companies can't simply decide to ship products without the necessary food certificates. At Morpheus.Network, we incorporate food certification into supply chain documentation, ensuring that everything is handled correctly, especially when dealing with cross-border shipments. “Our approach integrates various elements—food certification, customs documentation, and more—into an automated system. This automation tackles existing inefficiencies, making processes smoother and more reliable,” he says. “It's exciting to engage with companies about their current practices and introduce them to more efficient methods. The biggest challenge, however, is education. Many businesses are not aware that there are better ways to manage their supply chains. Our goal is to show them how these advanced techniques can transform their operations, leading to greater efficiency and competitiveness.” Morpheus.Network's agnostic middleware approach sets it apart from competitors. Instead of replacing existing IT systems, it integrates seamlessly with them, supporting various ERP and TMS systems. This flexibility makes it easier for companies to adopt Morpheus.Network's solutions without overhauling their entire infrastructure. “We enable companies to continue using their existing IT stacks, whether they're utilizing SAP ERP, Oracle ERP, JD Edwards, Sage, Microsoft Dynamics, or other systems. Our middleware seamlessly integrates with various Transportation Management Systems (TMS), such as Magaya and other Cloud-based solutions, without the need to replace any of these systems. “Our middleware sits between these IT systems, embracing the specific technologies companies already use. This approach simplifies the integration of our solutions into their current processes. By being an agnostic middleware, we differentiate ourselves from others who insist on replacing existing systems with their own. Instead, we enhance backend automation based on the current systems companies have in place. “This strategy has proven advantageous. For example, we have successfully integrated our solutions with over 30 different ERPs into a single system. If we had required companies to switch to a single ERP like SAP, it would have involved a multimillion-dollar implementation. Instead, we incorporated the data from their existing systems into their supply chain at a much lower cost.” This approach not only preserves companies' existing investments but also enhances efficiency and integration, making Morpheus.Network a valuable partner in optimizing supply chain management. Currently, the company is expanding its reach to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) with a new product called Speed.supply. This self-managed platform allows SMEs to automate documentation, insurance, and IoT integration, with blockchain ensuring data integrity. Looking ahead, Weinberger sees blockchain as the backbone of data integrity, with AI and machine learning revolutionizing demand forecasting, maintenance, and congestion avoidance. "Making supply chains more efficient is a $2 trillion opportunity," Weinberger notes, emphasizing the importance of technology in driving these efficiencies. “Right now, we're thinking about our kids and their future. When it comes to carbon emissions, there's nothing in this world that emits carbon not even close, as much as the supply chains of businesses. 90% of all carbon emissions are the supply chains of businesses” (a statistic from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Morpheus.Network's success is underpinned by a collaborative and innovative company culture. "We operate with a flat hierarchy," says Weinberger. "Everyone feels ownership of their projects and understands the bigger picture—making supply chains more efficient for the environment and the economy." As Morpheus.Network continues to grow, it remains dedicated to transforming the supply chain industry, proving that technological innovation and sustainability can go hand in hand.

Morpheus.Network: Changing the Face of  Global Supply Chains

COPA Claims Craig Wright’s LaTeX Documents on Bitcoin Concepts are Fabricated

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 13 of 42. 11. “The King2.rtf” {ID_004695} {L2/49/1} 234. The document purports to be an article on network security, involving discussion of quorum systems, and part of what Dr Wright claimed was precursor work on concepts featuring in his development of Bitcoin. By its presence in BDOPC.raw, the document purports to pre-date 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 235. This is a document which was among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch Joint Report [12] Q/6/5]. 236. The document has been backdated. It is a Rich Text File created with the editor version Riched20.dll v10.0.19041. That version of Riched20 is the version associated with the May 2020 update of Windows 10. [Madden3 [86-91] G/5/34] 237. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Further: 237.1. Comparing the deleted version of this document to the disclosed version shows that this document did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. [PM46 [12] H/278/4] 237.2. It was modified within BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. [PM46 [12] H/278/4] 237.3. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. 237.4. The modification included deletion of metadata which were not contemporaneous to 2007 but which are contemporaneous to 12 September 2023. 238. A precursor version of this document was included in the deleted image InfoDef09.raw. Further, the same document was recoverable as a deleted file within BDOPC.raw [PM46 [29 H/278/8]. The recovered, deleted version of this document included the following: [PM46 [24] H/278/7] 238.1. An indication that the author was Craig S Wright. [PM46 [24] H/278/7] 238.2. An indication that the operator of the software in use was Craig S Wright. [PM46 [24] H/278/7] 238.3. A timestamp dating its creation to 12 September 2023. [PM46 [25.a.] H/278/8] 238.4. A Grammarly timestamp indicating it was interacted with on 12 September 2023 at 07:38:30 and 244 milliseconds. [PM46 [25.c.] H/278/8] 238.5. Reference to the use of Dragon Dictate software. [PM46 [25.d.] H/278/8] 238.6. A reference to the use of Zotero software version 6.0.27 [PM46 [24] H/278/7]. That version of Zotero was not released until 5 September 2023 [PM46 [20] H/278/7]. 239. This document and the folder in which it was located contain metadata irregularities indicating the use of clock manipulation to alter their timestamps. [PM46 [12] H/278/4] 240. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. 241. Part of the chain of editing of document is another deleted document recovered from BDOPC.raw called “the King.rtf”. [PM46 [13] H/278/5]. “The King.rtf” was edited within one minute of “The King2.rtf”. “The King.rtf” contains: 241.1. References to the same user as author and operator of the software, “Craig S Wright”. [PM46 [18] H/278/6]. 241.2. The same Grammarly timestamp indicating it was interacted with on 12 September 2023 at 07:38:30 and 244 milliseconds. [PM46 [18] H/278/6]. 241.3. References to the font Calibri Light [PM46 [18] H/278/6], a font which had not yet been designed in 2007. 241.4. References to the same 5 September 2023 version of Zotero [PM46 [18] H/278/6]. 242. Other related Dragon Dictate files, “The King.dra” and “The King2.dra” had existed within InfoDef09.raw and were deleted, and those files show similarly inconsistent metadata. [Madden4 [30-40] G/6/13]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 243. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 244. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 245. The deleted documents record the user and editor as “Craig S Wright”. This information was deleted. 246. The deleted documents record the use of Grammarly in connection with the documents. Dr Wright is a user of Grammarly software. 247. The deleted documents record the use of Dragon Dictate in connection with the documents. Dr Wright is a user of Dragon Dictate software. 248. The deleted documents record the use of Zotero in connection with the documents. Dr Wright is a user of Zotero software. 249. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 249.1. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is one of Dr Wright’s “versions of a paper titled “The King's Wi-Fi: Leveraging Quorum Systems in the Byzantine Generals Problem for Enhanced Network Security” that Dr Wright produced for an examination at the Sans Institute. The papers describe “using a proof-of-work chain to solve a problem in distributed computing known as the Byzantine Generals Problem, which is concerned with how to achieve consensus in groups that include hostile actors.” [Wright 6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field 1, L20/223/5] 249.2. It is said to be one of Dr Wright’s “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/4] 250. The document was not disclosed at the proper time. It was disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 251. Dr Wright accepted that this file (found on the BDO Drive) was created with a version of Windows which was the May 2020 update, and that it was feasible that there had been someone accessing the BDO Drive. However, he disputed Mr Madden’s findings that the version of this file found in the InfoDef.raw deleted folder contained signs of creation on 12 September 2023. Mr Madden based his findings on Zotero and Grammarly tags found in that equivalent version of the file, but Dr Wright claimed that Zotero and Grammarly do not work in the way suggested and do not have a plug-in for .rtf files. {Day5/76:15} and following. 252. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 252.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 252.2. Dr Wright accepts these documents have been tampered with, but blames Mr Ager-Hanssen. As set out above, that story lacks any credibility. 252.3. The files were clearly created using Grammarly and Zotero in 2023, as the unchallenged forensic findings by Mr Madden demonstrate: Madden4 Appendix PM46 {H/278/5}. There is no evidence to support Dr Wright’s assertion to the contrary, and Mr Madden was not cross-examined on the point. 252.4. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004695 was manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 13 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 13 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 11. “The King2.rtf” {ID_004695} {L2/49/1} 234. The document purports to be an article on network security, involving discussion of quorum systems, and part of what Dr Wright claimed was precursor work on concepts featuring in his development of Bitcoin. By its presence in BDOPC.raw, the document purports to pre-date 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 235. This is a document which was among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch Joint Report [12] Q/6/5]. 236. The document has been backdated. It is a Rich Text File created with the editor version Riched20.dll v10.0.19041. That version of Riched20 is the version associated with the May 2020 update of Windows 10. [Madden3 [86-91] G/5/34] 237. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Further: 237.1. Comparing the deleted version of this document to the disclosed version shows that this document did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. [PM46 [12] H/278/4] 237.2. It was modified within BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. [PM46 [12] H/278/4] 237.3. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. 237.4. The modification included deletion of metadata which were not contemporaneous to 2007 but which are contemporaneous to 12 September 2023. 238. A precursor version of this document was included in the deleted image InfoDef09.raw. Further, the same document was recoverable as a deleted file within BDOPC.raw [PM46 [29 H/278/8]. The recovered, deleted version of this document included the following: [PM46 [24] H/278/7] 238.1. An indication that the author was Craig S Wright. [PM46 [24] H/278/7] 238.2. An indication that the operator of the software in use was Craig S Wright. [PM46 [24] H/278/7] 238.3. A timestamp dating its creation to 12 September 2023. [PM46 [25.a.] H/278/8] 238.4. A Grammarly timestamp indicating it was interacted with on 12 September 2023 at 07:38:30 and 244 milliseconds. [PM46 [25.c.] H/278/8] 238.5. Reference to the use of Dragon Dictate software. [PM46 [25.d.] H/278/8] 238.6. A reference to the use of Zotero software version 6.0.27 [PM46 [24] H/278/7]. That version of Zotero was not released until 5 September 2023 [PM46 [20] H/278/7]. 239. This document and the folder in which it was located contain metadata irregularities indicating the use of clock manipulation to alter their timestamps. [PM46 [12] H/278/4] 240. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. 241. Part of the chain of editing of document is another deleted document recovered from BDOPC.raw called “the King.rtf”. [PM46 [13] H/278/5]. “The King.rtf” was edited within one minute of “The King2.rtf”. “The King.rtf” contains: 241.1. References to the same user as author and operator of the software, “Craig S Wright”. [PM46 [18] H/278/6]. 241.2. The same Grammarly timestamp indicating it was interacted with on 12 September 2023 at 07:38:30 and 244 milliseconds. [PM46 [18] H/278/6]. 241.3. References to the font Calibri Light [PM46 [18] H/278/6], a font which had not yet been designed in 2007. 241.4. References to the same 5 September 2023 version of Zotero [PM46 [18] H/278/6]. 242. Other related Dragon Dictate files, “The King.dra” and “The King2.dra” had existed within InfoDef09.raw and were deleted, and those files show similarly inconsistent metadata. [Madden4 [30-40] G/6/13]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 243. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 244. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 245. The deleted documents record the user and editor as “Craig S Wright”. This information was deleted. 246. The deleted documents record the use of Grammarly in connection with the documents. Dr Wright is a user of Grammarly software. 247. The deleted documents record the use of Dragon Dictate in connection with the documents. Dr Wright is a user of Dragon Dictate software. 248. The deleted documents record the use of Zotero in connection with the documents. Dr Wright is a user of Zotero software. 249. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 249.1. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is one of Dr Wright’s “versions of a paper titled “The King's Wi-Fi: Leveraging Quorum Systems in the Byzantine Generals Problem for Enhanced Network Security” that Dr Wright produced for an examination at the Sans Institute. The papers describe “using a proof-of-work chain to solve a problem in distributed computing known as the Byzantine Generals Problem, which is concerned with how to achieve consensus in groups that include hostile actors.” [Wright 6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field 1, L20/223/5] “versions of a paper titled “The King's Wi-Fi: Leveraging Quorum Systems in the Byzantine Generals Problem for Enhanced Network Security” “using a proof-of-work chain to solve a problem in distributed computing known as the Byzantine Generals Problem, which is concerned with how to achieve consensus in groups that include hostile actors.” 249.2. It is said to be one of Dr Wright’s “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/4] “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper” 250. The document was not disclosed at the proper time. It was disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 251. Dr Wright accepted that this file (found on the BDO Drive) was created with a version of Windows which was the May 2020 update, and that it was feasible that there had been someone accessing the BDO Drive. However, he disputed Mr Madden’s findings that the version of this file found in the InfoDef.raw deleted folder contained signs of creation on 12 September 2023. Mr Madden based his findings on Zotero and Grammarly tags found in that equivalent version of the file, but Dr Wright claimed that Zotero and Grammarly do not work in the way suggested and do not have a plug-in for .rtf files. {Day5/76:15} and following. 252. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 252.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 252.2. Dr Wright accepts these documents have been tampered with, but blames Mr Ager-Hanssen. As set out above, that story lacks any credibility. 252.3. The files were clearly created using Grammarly and Zotero in 2023, as the unchallenged forensic findings by Mr Madden demonstrate: Madden4 Appendix PM46 {H/278/5}. There is no evidence to support Dr Wright’s assertion to the contrary, and Mr Madden was not cross-examined on the point. 252.4. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004695 was manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

Forensic Findings Undermine Craig Wright’s Claim to Be the Real 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 9 of 42. 7. Conversions to LaTeX using the 2022 version of Pandoc {ID_004648} {PTR-F/5/1} and {ID_004687} {L1/236/1} 149. These are two LaTeX source documents presented by Dr Wright as if they are precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper. {ID_004648} is presented as a draft or paper produced in his work on the MNSA programme at Charles Sturt University in 2004/5 P4/10/4, and it appears to be a paper on hash chains and security of voting. {ID_004687} is presented as an article on IT security with a face dating of June 2006 which refers to hash chains and Merkle trees (features of the Bitcoin system). (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 150. These are documents which were among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch Joint Report1 [12] Q/6/5]. 151. These documents have been backdated. They refer to LaTeX packages which were not released in 2007. In particular: 151.1. They specify code (‘\usepackage’) to use the package “selnolig”. Selnolig was not conceived of until 2011. It was not created until 2012-2013. It was not posted to the internet until May 2013 [Loretan1 [5], C/20/2]. They also refer to the package “xurl”, which had not been released at the stated dates of these documents [Madden3 [30] G/5/16]. 151.2. Selnolig requires a then-recent (2012-2013) version of LuaTeX to be used. [Loretan1 [6], C/20/2] 151.3. There was no previous package called ‘selnolig’. [Loretan1 [7], C/20/2] 152. These documents have been created with the Pandoc document conversion software. Pandoc is an open-source piece of software that can convert documents between different formats. It can generate LaTeX documents automatically [Macfarlane1 [3] C/19/1]. In particular: 152.1. {ID_004687} contains a line which states that it was created as LaTeX via Pandoc, which is characteristic of the use of Pandoc. [Macfarlane1 [5] C/19/1]. Although {ID_004648} does not include that line “LaTeX via Pandoc”, it includes the other code from the same October template. 152.2. The template for conversion to LaTeX was not introduced into Pandoc at all until 2010 [Macfarlane1 [5] C/19/1]. 153. The documents have been created during the course of these proceedings: 153.1. Inspection of the (open-source) source code of Pandoc allows for more precise dating. The document was created after October 2022. The version of Pandoc used for creation of this document uses code that was not committed to Pandoc until October 2022. [Macfarlane1 [9] C/19/2]. 153.2. October 2022 is after the commencement of these proceedings. 154. The documents were sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. These documents were added by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 155. The effect of the tampering is to create documents which appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 156. These documents were added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright, as explained in the section “BDOPC.raw” above. 157. The further effect of tampering is to lend support to Dr Wright’s new position that the Bitcoin White Paper was created in LaTeX, by providing other LaTeX documents alongside it. That story is a recent product of Dr Wright’s invention. 158. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to these documents: 158.1. Both are said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because they are “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper” [Wright 6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field 1, L20/223/4]. 158.2. {ID_004648} is said to be one of Dr Wright’s “drafts and papers written by Dr Wright during his Masters of Network and System Administration (MNSA) programme at Charles Sturt University, which he pursued between 2004 and 2005. These papers show an interest in the problems in distributed in distributed computing systems and considers solutions that are precursors to the consensusbased system that underpins Bitcoin." [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/4] 158.3. {ID_004687} is said to be a version of “a paper prepared for a 360º Security Summit on 15 June 2006 concerned with “Implementing Effective Risk-Based Controls”, which Dr Wright prepared in his role at BDO. The hash chain technology discussed in the paper is analogous to the blockchain technology used in Bitcoin." [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/5] 158.4. None of Dr Wright’s explanations above is compatible with the forensic evidence, and each is shown by that evidence to be false. 159. The documents were not disclosed at the proper time. They were disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 160. Dr Wright claimed that references to selnolig and xurl were present in these files because someone had accessed them at a later date. As for the inclusion of Pandoc, Dr Wright claimed that the words “pdfcreateor…LaTeX via pandoc” was not a Pandoc marker, and instead claimed that this was a manually added comment. Dr Wright claimed that there is no LaTeX compiler version known to him (including Overleaf) that adds that statement. He suggested that he understood how Pandoc worked better than its creator, Professor Macfarlane. He also again blamed Mr Ager-Hanssen for the presence of the references:{Day5/106:6} and following. 161. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 161.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 161.2. Dr Wright was compelled to accept that selnolig and xurl both postdate these the dates of these files. 161.3. Professor Macfarlane, creator of Pandoc, gave evidence (unchallenged) that the source commits he implemented dated the template for these documents to a template that was first made available at some point between March and October 2022. Macfarlane1 {C/19/2}. 161.4. No explanation was given by Dr Wright as to why a user would choose to write “LaTeX via pandoc” in the pdfcreator field. His excuse that someone would happen to add, for no reason, that a document was created by a genuine piece of software, simply makes no sense. Pandoc is a LaTeX convertor. There were also numerous other documents that had “pdfcreator = {LaTeX via pandoc}}” contained in them. 161.5. Dr Wright never mentioned that his documents had been accessed and manipulated in this way until his cross-examination. 161.6. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004648 & ID_004687 were manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 9 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 9 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 7. Conversions to LaTeX using the 2022 version of Pandoc {ID_004648} {PTR-F/5/1} and {ID_004687} {L1/236/1} 149. These are two LaTeX source documents presented by Dr Wright as if they are precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper. {ID_004648} is presented as a draft or paper produced in his work on the MNSA programme at Charles Sturt University in 2004/5 P4/10/4, and it appears to be a paper on hash chains and security of voting. {ID_004687} is presented as an article on IT security with a face dating of June 2006 which refers to hash chains and Merkle trees (features of the Bitcoin system). (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 150. These are documents which were among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch Joint Report1 [12] Q/6/5]. 151. These documents have been backdated. They refer to LaTeX packages which were not released in 2007. In particular: 151.1. They specify code (‘\usepackage’) to use the package “ selnolig ”. Selnolig was not conceived of until 2011. It was not created until 2012-2013. It was not posted to the internet until May 2013 [Loretan1 [5], C/20/2]. They also refer to the package “ xurl ”, which had not been released at the stated dates of these documents [Madden3 [30] G/5/16]. selnolig xurl 151.2. Selnolig requires a then-recent (2012-2013) version of LuaTeX to be used. [Loretan1 [6], C/20/2] 151.3. There was no previous package called ‘selnolig’. [Loretan1 [7], C/20/2] 152. These documents have been created with the Pandoc document conversion software. Pandoc is an open-source piece of software that can convert documents between different formats. It can generate LaTeX documents automatically [Macfarlane1 [3] C/19/1]. In particular: Pandoc 152.1. {ID_004687} contains a line which states that it was created as LaTeX via Pandoc, which is characteristic of the use of Pandoc. [Macfarlane1 [5] C/19/1]. Although {ID_004648} does not include that line “LaTeX via Pandoc”, it includes the other code from the same October template. 152.2. The template for conversion to LaTeX was not introduced into Pandoc at all until 2010 [Macfarlane1 [5] C/19/1]. 153. The documents have been created during the course of these proceedings: 153.1. Inspection of the (open-source) source code of Pandoc allows for more precise dating. The document was created after October 2022. The version of Pandoc used for creation of this document uses code that was not committed to Pandoc until October 2022. [Macfarlane1 [9] C/19/2]. 153.2. October 2022 is after the commencement of these proceedings. 154. The documents were sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. These documents were added by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 155. The effect of the tampering is to create documents which appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 156. These documents were added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright, as explained in the section “BDOPC.raw” above. 157. The further effect of tampering is to lend support to Dr Wright’s new position that the Bitcoin White Paper was created in LaTeX, by providing other LaTeX documents alongside it. That story is a recent product of Dr Wright’s invention. 158. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to these documents: 158.1. Both are said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because they are “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper” [Wright 6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field 1, L20/223/4]. “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper” 158.2. {ID_004648} is said to be one of Dr Wright’s “drafts and papers written by Dr Wright during his Masters of Network and System Administration (MNSA) programme at Charles Sturt University, which he pursued between 2004 and 2005. These papers show an interest in the problems in distributed in distributed computing systems and considers solutions that are precursors to the consensusbased system that underpins Bitcoin." [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/4] “drafts and papers written by Dr Wright during his Masters of Network and System Administration (MNSA) programme at Charles Sturt University, which he pursued between 2004 and 2005. These papers show an interest in the problems in distributed in distributed computing systems and considers solutions that are precursors to the consensusbased system that underpins Bitcoin." 158.3. {ID_004687} is said to be a version of “a paper prepared for a 360º Security Summit on 15 June 2006 concerned with “Implementing Effective Risk-Based Controls”, which Dr Wright prepared in his role at BDO. The hash chain technology discussed in the paper is analogous to the blockchain technology used in Bitcoin." [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/5] “a paper prepared for a 360º Security Summit on 15 June 2006 concerned with “Implementing Effective Risk-Based Controls”, which Dr Wright prepared in his role at BDO. The hash chain technology discussed in the paper is analogous to the blockchain technology used in Bitcoin." 158.4. None of Dr Wright’s explanations above is compatible with the forensic evidence, and each is shown by that evidence to be false. 159. The documents were not disclosed at the proper time. They were disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 160. Dr Wright claimed that references to selnolig and xurl were present in these files because someone had accessed them at a later date. As for the inclusion of Pandoc, Dr Wright claimed that the words “pdfcreateor…LaTeX via pandoc” was not a Pandoc marker, and instead claimed that this was a manually added comment. Dr Wright claimed that there is no LaTeX compiler version known to him (including Overleaf) that adds that statement. He suggested that he understood how Pandoc worked better than its creator, Professor Macfarlane. He also again blamed Mr Ager-Hanssen for the presence of the references:{Day5/106:6} and following. 161. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 161.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 161.2. Dr Wright was compelled to accept that selnolig and xurl both postdate these the dates of these files. 161.3. Professor Macfarlane, creator of Pandoc, gave evidence (unchallenged) that the source commits he implemented dated the template for these documents to a template that was first made available at some point between March and October 2022. Macfarlane1 {C/19/2}. 161.4. No explanation was given by Dr Wright as to why a user would choose to write “LaTeX via pandoc” in the pdfcreator field. His excuse that someone would happen to add, for no reason, that a document was created by a genuine piece of software, simply makes no sense. Pandoc is a LaTeX convertor. There were also numerous other documents that had “pdfcreator = {LaTeX via pandoc}}” contained in them. 161.5. Dr Wright never mentioned that his documents had been accessed and manipulated in this way until his cross-examination. 161.6. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004648 & ID_004687 were manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

CLAIN

clain.io

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

CLAIN

EVERGREEN INDEX #2999

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Clain WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

CLAIN

clain.io

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

CLAIN

EVERGREEN INDEX #2999

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT CLAIN

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Clain WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!