Documentlyis in the Enterprise Collaboration Industry

Documently

documently

Navigating the Maze of Technical Documentation: Best Practices for Keeping Your Code Up-To-Date

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 36 of 42. 34. Converted Code2Flow source code flowchart (Reliance Document) {ID_000554} / {L3/326/1} 61. This is the second document which relates to the Bitcoin Source Code. The document is described by Dr Wright as maps of the Bitcoin Source Code. The document contains a date on its face of 9 June 2008, which is before the release of the Bitcoin White Paper or the Bitcoin Software by Satoshi Nakamoto. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 662. The document is a monochrome (pure black and white) picture file, in a format and encoding consistent with a fax transmission or low-quality scan of a physical document. However, the document has been electronically created by conversion from a PDF. [PM10 [5-9]]. 663. {ID_000554} has its origin in a PDF document, {ID_000375}. [PM10 [10-21]]. 664. The document has been backdated. [PM10 [74]]. 665. ID_00375, (the original document from which {ID_000554} was created), reveals that the specific parts of the text required to support Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi (title and year of creation) are encoded within the PDF metadata differently to the other parts of the text (page number, day, and month), consistent with having been added at a different time by different means [PM10 [24-31]]. This indication of tampering has been removed from Dr Wright’s Reliance Document {ID_000554} by the process of conversion to a low-quality picture file. 666. The internal, raw metadata content of {ID_000375} contains embedded fonts bearing copyright statements dating them to 2015 or later. [PM10 [34]]. 667. The internal metadata of {ID_000375} contains hidden embedded metadata streams indicating that the original title of the file was “code2flow – online interactive code to flowchart converter” which was edited to read “bitcoin main.h”. [PM10 [36, 41]]. 668. The online Code2Flow software used to create these flowcharts did not exist in 2008 but was created at some time after 2012. [PM10 [42-47]]. 669. The PDF document {ID_000375} (the origin document for {ID_000554}) was created with XMP Core software which did not exist in 2008, and which dates the document to February 2016 or later. [PM10 [39]]. 670. {ID_000375} (the origin document for {ID_000554}) was created with a PDF Producer software “Acrobat Distiller 15.0 for Windows” which did not exist in 2008 but which date to November 2015 or later. [PM10 [48-54]]. 671. The above indications of tampering were removed from Dr Wright’s Reliance Document ID_00554 by means of converting it to a low-quality picture file. 672. The content of the manipulation and the origination of the timestamps in question is consistent with the use of clock manipulation. [PM10 [71-74]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 673. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. a map of the Bitcoin Source Code supposedly prepared in June 2008 and in the possession of Dr Wright), contrary to fact. 674. Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 675. Dr Wright has chosen to rely in these proceedings on this document, which is stripped of relevant metadata by reason of its creation process. Dr Wright has chosen not to rely on the equivalent PDF digital document which is the apparent predecessor, which contains clearer details and which contains both relevant metadata and reveals indicia of tampering. 676. {ID_000554}, Dr Wright’s Reliance Document, contains no legible text or colour, and is blurred by conversion, rendering it impossible to relate to the underlying PDF by text searching or other means other than by visual comparison and subsequent corroboration. [PM10 [10-13]]. 677. Dr Wright (craig.wright) is recorded as the author in the metadata of the document from which {ID_000554} was created. 678. Although other documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure bear similar hallmarks to {ID_000554} (including {ID_000553}, another Reliance Document), Dr Wright has not disclosed their equivalent underlying PDFs. 679. In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 680. Despite this document being one of Dr Wright’s primary reliance documents, he stated in Appendix B to Wright11 that he could not recall how it was created or even whether “this is my original document or something other people have used.” He sought to explain away the findings summarised above by denying that the PDF document {ID_000375} was the source for this document {ID_000554}. He claimed that the PDF document {ID_000375} had been created after 2012/13 by unidentified “employees of DeMorgan Ltd”, and that the two documents were thus unrelated. See {CSW/2/55}. He repeated this explanation in his oral evidence: {Day4/31:11} to {Day4/37:14}. 681. Dr Wright sought to explain the finding that the PDF document {ID_000375} had internal raw metadata indicating that its previous title had been the standard template title for a document created with a code2flow online conversion tool created in 2012. As well as claiming that that document was not the source of {ID_000554}, he also suggested that previous tools existed which he could have used to create that document in its current form in 2008. See: {Day4/41:18} to {Day4/42:12}. 682. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 682.1. Dr Wright’s attempt to deny that the PDF document {ID_000375} is the source for the TIFF document {ID_000554} is implausible. It is obvious from visual comparison of the two documents that, although the latter is less legible, both depict an absolutely identical code structure, a point which Dr Wright was compelled to admit in his oral evidence {Day4/34:13}. In addition, both have the same header (BitCoin main.h) and the same footer (1 of 1 // 9/06/2008 11:24). Furthermore, there is no other document in the disclosure which could qualify as a source for the TIFF document {ID_000554}. 682.2. Dr Wright has been driven by the forensic findings to accept that {ID_000375} was created years after 2008, despite that document (in his disclosure) having a face date of 2008. He has sought to distance the two documents from each other (despite all their similarities) for the obvious purpose of avoiding the natural conclusion that {ID_000554} was created from {ID_000375} years after 2008. 682.3. Dr Wright’s explanation does not account for the signs of backdating of the source document, {ID_000375}, which are set out in PM10 [22-41 {H/63/9}, including (i) the document title and footer date having the year (08) being encoded differently from the other parts of the footer (indicating manipulation); and (ii) the internal created and modified metadata indicating creation of the document in 2008 (despite it now being common ground that the document was created years later). If this document was simply created by DeMorgan employees some time after 2015, and there was no intention to create a backdated forgery, it is impossible to see why these findings would appear. 682.4. Dr Wright has provided no documentary or witness evidence to back up his account that DeMorgan employees created the PDF document {ID_000375}. If he really can remember that that document was created for a distinct purpose by DeMorgan employees, it is surprising that he cannot identify (still less call as a witness) the person who supposedly created it. 682.5. Dr Wright had previously given an account of the creation of this document in Chain of Custody information which Mr Madden conclusively debunked in PM43 [69-74 {H/219/28}. (d) Conclusion 683. I found COPA’s arguments to be entirely convincing. This was another clumsy forgery by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 36 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 36 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 34. Converted Code2Flow source code flowchart (Reliance Document) {ID_000554} / {L3/326/1} 61. This is the second document which relates to the Bitcoin Source Code. The document is described by Dr Wright as maps of the Bitcoin Source Code. The document contains a date on its face of 9 June 2008, which is before the release of the Bitcoin White Paper or the Bitcoin Software by Satoshi Nakamoto. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 662. The document is a monochrome (pure black and white) picture file, in a format and encoding consistent with a fax transmission or low-quality scan of a physical document. However, the document has been electronically created by conversion from a PDF. [PM10 [5-9]]. 663. {ID_000554} has its origin in a PDF document, {ID_000375}. [PM10 [10-21]]. 664. The document has been backdated. [PM10 [74]]. 665. ID_00375, (the original document from which {ID_000554} was created), reveals that the specific parts of the text required to support Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi (title and year of creation) are encoded within the PDF metadata differently to the other parts of the text (page number, day, and month), consistent with having been added at a different time by different means [PM10 [24-31]]. This indication of tampering has been removed from Dr Wright’s Reliance Document {ID_000554} by the process of conversion to a low-quality picture file. 666. The internal, raw metadata content of {ID_000375} contains embedded fonts bearing copyright statements dating them to 2015 or later. [PM10 [34]]. 667. The internal metadata of {ID_000375} contains hidden embedded metadata streams indicating that the original title of the file was “code2flow – online interactive code to flowchart converter” which was edited to read “bitcoin main.h”. [PM10 [36, 41]]. 668. The online Code2Flow software used to create these flowcharts did not exist in 2008 but was created at some time after 2012. [PM10 [42-47]]. 669. The PDF document {ID_000375} (the origin document for {ID_000554}) was created with XMP Core software which did not exist in 2008, and which dates the document to February 2016 or later. [PM10 [39]]. 670. {ID_000375} (the origin document for {ID_000554}) was created with a PDF Producer software “Acrobat Distiller 15.0 for Windows” which did not exist in 2008 but which date to November 2015 or later. [PM10 [48-54]]. 671. The above indications of tampering were removed from Dr Wright’s Reliance Document ID_00554 by means of converting it to a low-quality picture file. 672. The content of the manipulation and the origination of the timestamps in question is consistent with the use of clock manipulation. [PM10 [71-74]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 673. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. a map of the Bitcoin Source Code supposedly prepared in June 2008 and in the possession of Dr Wright), contrary to fact. 674. Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 675. Dr Wright has chosen to rely in these proceedings on this document, which is stripped of relevant metadata by reason of its creation process. Dr Wright has chosen not to rely on the equivalent PDF digital document which is the apparent predecessor, which contains clearer details and which contains both relevant metadata and reveals indicia of tampering. 676. {ID_000554}, Dr Wright’s Reliance Document, contains no legible text or colour, and is blurred by conversion, rendering it impossible to relate to the underlying PDF by text searching or other means other than by visual comparison and subsequent corroboration. [PM10 [10-13]]. 677. Dr Wright (craig.wright) is recorded as the author in the metadata of the document from which {ID_000554} was created. 678. Although other documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure bear similar hallmarks to {ID_000554} (including {ID_000553}, another Reliance Document), Dr Wright has not disclosed their equivalent underlying PDFs. 679. In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 680. Despite this document being one of Dr Wright’s primary reliance documents, he stated in Appendix B to Wright11 that he could not recall how it was created or even whether “this is my original document or something other people have used.” He sought to explain away the findings summarised above by denying that the PDF document {ID_000375} was the source for this document {ID_000554}. He claimed that the PDF document {ID_000375} had been created after 2012/13 by unidentified “employees of DeMorgan Ltd”, and that the two documents were thus unrelated. See {CSW/2/55}. He repeated this explanation in his oral evidence: {Day4/31:11} to {Day4/37:14}. 681. Dr Wright sought to explain the finding that the PDF document {ID_000375} had internal raw metadata indicating that its previous title had been the standard template title for a document created with a code2flow online conversion tool created in 2012. As well as claiming that that document was not the source of {ID_000554}, he also suggested that previous tools existed which he could have used to create that document in its current form in 2008. See: {Day4/41:18} to {Day4/42:12}. 682. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 682.1. Dr Wright’s attempt to deny that the PDF document {ID_000375} is the source for the TIFF document {ID_000554} is implausible. It is obvious from visual comparison of the two documents that, although the latter is less legible, both depict an absolutely identical code structure, a point which Dr Wright was compelled to admit in his oral evidence {Day4/34:13}. In addition, both have the same header (BitCoin main.h) and the same footer (1 of 1 // 9/06/2008 11:24). Furthermore, there is no other document in the disclosure which could qualify as a source for the TIFF document {ID_000554}. 682.2. Dr Wright has been driven by the forensic findings to accept that {ID_000375} was created years after 2008, despite that document (in his disclosure) having a face date of 2008. He has sought to distance the two documents from each other (despite all their similarities) for the obvious purpose of avoiding the natural conclusion that {ID_000554} was created from {ID_000375} years after 2008. 682.3. Dr Wright’s explanation does not account for the signs of backdating of the source document, {ID_000375}, which are set out in PM10 [22-41 {H/63/9}, including (i) the document title and footer date having the year (08) being encoded differently from the other parts of the footer (indicating manipulation); and (ii) the internal created and modified metadata indicating creation of the document in 2008 (despite it now being common ground that the document was created years later). If this document was simply created by DeMorgan employees some time after 2015, and there was no intention to create a backdated forgery, it is impossible to see why these findings would appear. 682.4. Dr Wright has provided no documentary or witness evidence to back up his account that DeMorgan employees created the PDF document {ID_000375}. If he really can remember that that document was created for a distinct purpose by DeMorgan employees, it is surprising that he cannot identify (still less call as a witness) the person who supposedly created it. 682.5. Dr Wright had previously given an account of the creation of this document in Chain of Custody information which Mr Madden conclusively debunked in PM43 [69-74 {H/219/28}. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 683. I found COPA’s arguments to be entirely convincing. This was another clumsy forgery by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

COPA Accuses Craig Wright of Manipulating Bitcoin Flowchart Documents

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 35 of 42. 33. C++ Code {ID_004712} {PTR-F/69/1} and {ID_004713} {PTR-F/70/1} 648. In this and the following two sections, I turn to consider documents which concern the Bitcoin Source Code. The two documents purport to be C++ source code, presented as code files for models of Bitcoin, as if Dr Wright had in October 2007 already been working on such code using C++ (the same coding language as used by Satoshi Nakamoto). (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 649. These documents are among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 650.1. They call on the use of the libraries “<chrono>”, <thread>” and “<random”. These libraries are part of the C++11 standard, first released in 2011. [Stroustrup 1 [4] C/23/1] 650.2. <chrono>was not first proposed until 11 June 2008. [Hinnant1 [4] C/18/1] 650.3. The first discussion of what became <chrono> was not published until 19 January 2008, and was not at that time called <chrono>. [Hinnant1 [5] C/18/2] 650.4. Within <chrono>, these documents call for the use of the function “sleep_for”. By 19 January 2008, the function was referred to as ‘sleep’ (not yet ‘sleep_for’). [Hinnant1 [5] C/18/2] 650.5. By that time, neither <chrono> nor “sleep_for” yet existed, even on the personal computer of its developer. [Hinnant1 [5] C/18/2] 651. 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 652. The effect of the tampering is to make the documents appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 653. The further effect of the tampering is to lead to source code files being presented as if they are relevant to the case, contrary to fact. This includes human-readable comments within the source code such as “// Calculate Total Proof of Work”. 654. These documents were added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 655. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to these documents: 655.1. Both are said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because they are “C++ code files code for a simplified model of Bitcoin to evaluate transaction processing, cryptographic security, and consensus mechanisms. This is analysed and described in {ID_004710}, which is a LaTeX file that codes for a paper setting out a “Game Theoretical Analysis of Node Strategies in a Decentralised System”” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/6)]. 655.2. They are 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] 656. 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. 657. The documents were sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. These documents were added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 658. Dr Wright claimed that this was a simplified model of Bitcoin in C++ code. It contains the Chrono time utility that was first standardised in 2011. Dr Wright said that he produced his own time library from Project Chrono, a physics engine first developed in 1998. He said that he had developed C++ libraries and commercially produced these when he was running Integrys in Australia. His account was that he used a modified version of the Project Chrono physics engine (which simulates movements of cars etc.) because he was looking at movements from one node to another. He said that he also used the “sleep_for” syntax in his code. He asserted that the reference to “random” in his code was explained by him creating random number generators since the 1980s including for a large number of online gambling sites: Wright11 {CSW/1/87} {Day5/113:24} and following. 659. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 659.1. 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. 659.2. It was not possible to use and “sleep_for” in C++ code in October 2007 prior to its public release in 2011. Whilst an earlier version of what became was mentioned publicly on 19 January 2008, the word “chrono” was not used: Hinnant{C/18/1}. 659.3. Project Chrono is a physics simulation library. The only thing that it shares with the Chrono library is the name. Mr Hinnant’s evidence was that it would take a huge amount of work to turn Project Chrono into Chrono and that it would be far quicker to build Chrono (as a time library) from scratch. He added that “the mere fact that somebody says that they derived a date time library from a physics library indicates to me that they don’t have the technical expertise to even write Chrono from scratch” because it would actually take more work to write it from a physics library than from scratch: {Day14/43:2}. 659.4. Dr Wright does not have a good understanding of C++ code, as was clear from his inability to understand what an unsigned integer is: {Day8/143:4} and following. 659.5. There is no evidence that he, or any company associated with him, has sold commercial C++ packages. 659.6. Dr Wright’s story that he used a modified physics engine to consider movements inside a computer network from one node to another is not only a fiction, but it also reveals that he simply does not understand the difference between modelling of real-world movements affected by gravity and the movements of signals in a computing network. 659.7. His excuse means that even if he did all of the above, he still managed to land on the exact nomenclature and spacing used in Chrono, which would not be developed for another four years, as set out in Mr Hinnant’s evidence (references above). 659.8. Even if Dr Wright had created his own version of a personalised Chrono library, as this was not standardised it would be regarded as “undefined behaviour” by the compiler, the effect of that being that the compiler may or may not do what the programmer intends, as “literally anything can happen when the compiler comes upon undefined behaviour”: {Day14/44:12}. 659.9. His boasts of creating random number generators for a host of online gambling sites are not backed up by any evidence, and furthermore, the evidence that there is of his work for these sites is that he was involved in IT security, not programming on the gaming side of things. 659.10. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_004712 and ID_004713 were manipulated: {Q/6/5}. (d) Conclusion 660. In addition to COPA’s submissions set out above, I refer also to the following sections in the main Judgment, [258]-[263], [637]-[646] and [647]-[650], all of which demonstrate very clearly, in my judgment, that these two documents were forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 35 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 35 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 33. C++ Code {ID_004712} {PTR-F/69/1} and {ID_004713} {PTR-F/70/1} 648. In this and the following two sections, I turn to consider documents which concern the Bitcoin Source Code. The two documents purport to be C++ source code, presented as code files for models of Bitcoin, as if Dr Wright had in October 2007 already been working on such code using C++ (the same coding language as used by Satoshi Nakamoto). (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 649. These documents are among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 650.1. They call on the use of the libraries “<chrono>”, <thread>” and “<random”. These libraries are part of the C++11 standard, first released in 2011. [Stroustrup 1 [4] C/23/1] 650.2. <chrono>was not first proposed until 11 June 2008. [Hinnant1 [4] C/18/1] 650.3. The first discussion of what became <chrono> was not published until 19 January 2008, and was not at that time called <chrono>. [Hinnant1 [5] C/18/2] 650.4. Within <chrono>, these documents call for the use of the function “sleep_for”. By 19 January 2008, the function was referred to as ‘sleep’ (not yet ‘sleep_for’). [Hinnant1 [5] C/18/2] 650.5. By that time, neither <chrono> nor “sleep_for” yet existed, even on the personal computer of its developer. [Hinnant1 [5] C/18/2] 651. 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 652. The effect of the tampering is to make the documents appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 653. The further effect of the tampering is to lead to source code files being presented as if they are relevant to the case, contrary to fact. This includes human-readable comments within the source code such as “// Calculate Total Proof of Work”. 654. These documents were added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 655. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to these documents: 655.1. Both are said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because they are “C++ code files code for a simplified model of Bitcoin to evaluate transaction processing, cryptographic security, and consensus mechanisms. This is analysed and described in {ID_004710}, which is a LaTeX file that codes for a paper setting out a “Game Theoretical Analysis of Node Strategies in a Decentralised System” ” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/6)]. “C++ code files code for a simplified model of Bitcoin to evaluate transaction processing, cryptographic security, and consensus mechanisms. This is analysed and described in {ID_004710}, which is a LaTeX file that codes for a paper setting out a “Game Theoretical Analysis of Node Strategies in a Decentralised System” 655.2. They are 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" 656. 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. 657. The documents were sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. These documents were added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 658. Dr Wright claimed that this was a simplified model of Bitcoin in C++ code. It contains the Chrono time utility that was first standardised in 2011. Dr Wright said that he produced his own time library from Project Chrono, a physics engine first developed in 1998. He said that he had developed C++ libraries and commercially produced these when he was running Integrys in Australia. His account was that he used a modified version of the Project Chrono physics engine (which simulates movements of cars etc.) because he was looking at movements from one node to another. He said that he also used the “sleep_for” syntax in his code. He asserted that the reference to “random” in his code was explained by him creating random number generators since the 1980s including for a large number of online gambling sites: Wright11 {CSW/1/87} {Day5/113:24} and following. 659. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 659.1. 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. 659.2. It was not possible to use and “sleep_for” in C++ code in October 2007 prior to its public release in 2011. Whilst an earlier version of what became was mentioned publicly on 19 January 2008, the word “chrono” was not used: Hinnant{C/18/1}. 659.3. Project Chrono is a physics simulation library. The only thing that it shares with the Chrono library is the name. Mr Hinnant’s evidence was that it would take a huge amount of work to turn Project Chrono into Chrono and that it would be far quicker to build Chrono (as a time library) from scratch. He added that “the mere fact that somebody says that they derived a date time library from a physics library indicates to me that they don’t have the technical expertise to even write Chrono from scratch” because it would actually take more work to write it from a physics library than from scratch: {Day14/43:2}. 659.4. Dr Wright does not have a good understanding of C++ code, as was clear from his inability to understand what an unsigned integer is: {Day8/143:4} and following. 659.5. There is no evidence that he, or any company associated with him, has sold commercial C++ packages. 659.6. Dr Wright’s story that he used a modified physics engine to consider movements inside a computer network from one node to another is not only a fiction, but it also reveals that he simply does not understand the difference between modelling of real-world movements affected by gravity and the movements of signals in a computing network. 659.7. His excuse means that even if he did all of the above, he still managed to land on the exact nomenclature and spacing used in Chrono, which would not be developed for another four years, as set out in Mr Hinnant’s evidence (references above). 659.8. Even if Dr Wright had created his own version of a personalised Chrono library, as this was not standardised it would be regarded as “undefined behaviour” by the compiler, the effect of that being that the compiler may or may not do what the programmer intends, as “literally anything can happen when the compiler comes upon undefined behaviour”: {Day14/44:12}. 659.9. His boasts of creating random number generators for a host of online gambling sites are not backed up by any evidence, and furthermore, the evidence that there is of his work for these sites is that he was involved in IT security, not programming on the gaming side of things. 659.10. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_004712 and ID_004713 were manipulated: {Q/6/5}. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 660. In addition to COPA’s submissions set out above, I refer also to the following sections in the main Judgment, [258]-[263], [637]-[646] and [647]-[650], all of which demonstrate very clearly, in my judgment, that these two documents were forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

C++ Code Documents in Bitcoin Case Deemed Forgery

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

Craig Wright's Bitcoin White Paper Document Questioned for Forgery

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 31 of 42. 29. “Noncooperative finite games” (Reliance Document) {ID_000396} / {L3/203/1} 544. This document purports to be precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper relating to network theory and mentioning “bitcoin”. It is dated to 10 September 2008. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 545. The document has been backdated. [PM27 [38]]. 546. The document was created within 3 minutes after {ID_000395}, another “Lynn Wright document” bearing independent indicia of tampering. [PM27 [17.a.]]. 547. The document was created in the same user session as {ID_000371}, another “Lynn Wright document” which contains common content as well as independent indicia of tampering. 548. Along with {ID_000371}, this document was created by copying content from an intermediate document deriving from a publicly available source document. [PM27 [18- 25]]. 549. The document contains a redundant reference section listing sources which do not relate to the main body content of the document. [PM27 [20]]. 550. The document contains hidden, embedded text of previous editing history, including comments which have since been deleted from the document. Among the embedded text is a series of comments dating from 22 October 2008. However, that was some 6 weeks in the future at the purported Created and Last Modified date in the internal metadata of the file. [PM27 [26-30]]. 551. The document has an edit time of 1 minute, but the content within the document would have taken longer to create, indicating that the content was imported from a donor source [PM27 [13-15]]. No donor source document has been disclosed. 552. The document was conducted by an unlikely sequence of saves between two authors in two minutes. [PM27 [5-6]]. 553. The document editing period overlaps with other similar documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure. [PM27 [32]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 554. Dr Wright is recorded as an author within the metadata of this document. 55. Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 556. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on purported work of the type referred to in this document as “foundational” for Bitcoin. [Wright1 [53-54]]. 557. The effect of the tampering is therefore to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work by Dr Wright on a subject of interest to him, but with reference to Bitcoin), contrary to fact. 558. In these proceedings (and previously), Dr Wright has claimed that his development of Bitcoin was influenced by work on networks as referred to in at least the references section of this document. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright1 [54]]. 559. Dr Wright has not disclosed the donor document or intermediate source document from which the content of {ID_000396} has been generated. 560. In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 61. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright sought to explain away the embedded text in the metadata containing a date / time reference for 22 October 2008 by saying that, while the document was created in September 2008, it could have been accessed in December 2008. He suggested that a user on a shared computing environment could have accessed the document, causing that reference to be inserted, but not interacted with the document (even to save it), thus accounting for the last saved timestamp remaining at 10 September 2008. See {CSW/2/40}. 562. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright sought to explain the anomalous edit time of just one minute by claiming that the document was produced by extremely quick cut-andpaste operations. See {CSW/2/42}. 563. In the relevant section of Appendix B, Dr Wright did not address the fact that this document featured a list of references at the end despite the text not actually referring to any of the reference works. That list of references originated in a paper by Olfati-Saber, from which Dr Wright copied when creating another of his documents: {ID/000371}: see PM27 [18-24]. 564. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 564.1. Dr Wright’s explanation for the presence of the date / time reference is contradicted by the clear expert evidence of Mr Madden, which is that such a reference could not be inserted without the document being interacted with by a user, which would in turn result in updating of the metadata timestamps of the document. The presence of the anachronistic reference shows that the document has been forged by backdating. See Madden4, [158]; Madden / Placks joint statement 2 at [8]; {Day16/35:19} to {Day16/38;11}; {Day16/125:7} to {Day16/125:18}. 564.2. On Dr Wright’s account, he created this document within just one minute by cutting and pasting sections from other (unidentified and apparently undisclosed) documents. It is implausible that he would produce a genuine research paper in this way. It is also highly unlikely that he would remember this method of creation 15 years on without having access to, and being able to identify, the underlying documents. 564.3. Dr Wright has failed to give any account for his addition to this document of a references section consisting entirely of works not referenced in the body of the text. The fact that this section matches a section from another of his document, which in turn copied from a published work, supports COPA’s case that this is another forgery produced in haste. (d) Conclusion 565. The points made by and on behalf of Dr Wright do not begin to provide a viable alternative explanation to the detailed points made by COPA. Once again, I find this document was plainly forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 31 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 31 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 29. “Noncooperative finite games” (Reliance Document) {ID_000396} / {L3/203/1} 544. This document purports to be precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper relating to network theory and mentioning “bitcoin”. It is dated to 10 September 2008. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 545. The document has been backdated. [PM27 [38]]. 546. The document was created within 3 minutes after {ID_000395}, another “Lynn Wright document” bearing independent indicia of tampering. [PM27 [17.a.]]. 547. The document was created in the same user session as {ID_000371}, another “Lynn Wright document” which contains common content as well as independent indicia of tampering. 548. Along with {ID_000371}, this document was created by copying content from an intermediate document deriving from a publicly available source document. [PM27 [18- 25]]. 549. The document contains a redundant reference section listing sources which do not relate to the main body content of the document. [PM27 [20]]. 550. The document contains hidden, embedded text of previous editing history, including comments which have since been deleted from the document. Among the embedded text is a series of comments dating from 22 October 2008. However, that was some 6 weeks in the future at the purported Created and Last Modified date in the internal metadata of the file. [PM27 [26-30]]. 551. The document has an edit time of 1 minute, but the content within the document would have taken longer to create, indicating that the content was imported from a donor source [PM27 [13-15]]. No donor source document has been disclosed. 552. The document was conducted by an unlikely sequence of saves between two authors in two minutes. [PM27 [5-6]]. 553. The document editing period overlaps with other similar documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure. [PM27 [32]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 554. Dr Wright is recorded as an author within the metadata of this document. 55. Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 556. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on purported work of the type referred to in this document as “foundational” for Bitcoin. [Wright1 [53-54]]. 557. The effect of the tampering is therefore to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work by Dr Wright on a subject of interest to him, but with reference to Bitcoin), contrary to fact. 558. In these proceedings (and previously), Dr Wright has claimed that his development of Bitcoin was influenced by work on networks as referred to in at least the references section of this document. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright1 [54]]. 559. Dr Wright has not disclosed the donor document or intermediate source document from which the content of {ID_000396} has been generated. 560. In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 61. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright sought to explain away the embedded text in the metadata containing a date / time reference for 22 October 2008 by saying that, while the document was created in September 2008, it could have been accessed in December 2008. He suggested that a user on a shared computing environment could have accessed the document, causing that reference to be inserted, but not interacted with the document (even to save it), thus accounting for the last saved timestamp remaining at 10 September 2008. See {CSW/2/40}. 562. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright sought to explain the anomalous edit time of just one minute by claiming that the document was produced by extremely quick cut-andpaste operations. See {CSW/2/42}. 563. In the relevant section of Appendix B, Dr Wright did not address the fact that this document featured a list of references at the end despite the text not actually referring to any of the reference works. That list of references originated in a paper by Olfati-Saber, from which Dr Wright copied when creating another of his documents: {ID/000371}: see PM27 [18-24]. 564. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 564.1. Dr Wright’s explanation for the presence of the date / time reference is contradicted by the clear expert evidence of Mr Madden, which is that such a reference could not be inserted without the document being interacted with by a user, which would in turn result in updating of the metadata timestamps of the document. The presence of the anachronistic reference shows that the document has been forged by backdating. See Madden4, [158]; Madden / Placks joint statement 2 at [8]; {Day16/35:19} to {Day16/38;11}; {Day16/125:7} to {Day16/125:18}. 564.2. On Dr Wright’s account, he created this document within just one minute by cutting and pasting sections from other (unidentified and apparently undisclosed) documents. It is implausible that he would produce a genuine research paper in this way. It is also highly unlikely that he would remember this method of creation 15 years on without having access to, and being able to identify, the underlying documents. 564.3. Dr Wright has failed to give any account for his addition to this document of a references section consisting entirely of works not referenced in the body of the text. The fact that this section matches a section from another of his document, which in turn copied from a published work, supports COPA’s case that this is another forgery produced in haste. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 565. The points made by and on behalf of Dr Wright do not begin to provide a viable alternative explanation to the detailed points made by COPA. Once again, I find this document was plainly forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

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

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 26 of 42. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 26 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 24. Timecoin ODT Whitepaper (Reliance Document) {ID_000254} 446. The document purports to be a precursor draft of the Bitcoin White Paper and is presented as if written by Dr Wright. It is dated in the period 6 May 2008 to 12 December 2008 in its metadata, and Dr Wright states its approximate date to be 6 May 2008 in his Chain of Custody information. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 447. The document has been backdated. Rather than being a precursor document to the Bitcoin White Paper as it purports to be, this document has been created from the Bitcoin White Paper subsequently and edited in such a way that it appears as if it was precursor work. [PM2 60-64]]. 448. {ID_000254} has apparently been converted from the Bitcoin White Paper (which is a PDF) into a more easily editable format and has then undergone further conversions via intermediate documents [PM2 [60-64]]. Font configurations and the absence of diagrams are consistent with this conclusion [PM2 [17-28]]. No such intermediate document has been disclosed. 449. Diagrams have been omitted from this document as a result of the conversion process from PDF. The inclusion of the object replacement character ￼ within the document [a point where a diagram would be expected to appear is consistent with {ID_000254} being created by a process of conversion of a different document. [PM2 [28]]. 450. Where diagrams are absent, the document nevertheless preserves margin indentations from the Bitcoin White Paper PDF, but which do not match the content of the document. [PM2 [29-37]]. 451. The document irregularly contains words throughout in which hyphens ought to appear but are missing. This is not consistent with ordinary dictation or typing error but is as an artefact of conversion from PDF and backdating. [PM2 [38-44]]. 452. A conversion of the Bitcoin White Paper PDF to editable form would result in corruption of formulae. In each case where those formulae would have appeared corrupted, they have been deleted from {ID_000254}, leaving behind white space. [PM2 [45-48]]. 453. The document contains irregular line breaks consistent with conversion from the Bitcoin White Paper PDF into editable form and backdating. [PM2 [49-51]]. 454. The document contains text that matches the corrected text of the Bitcoin White Paper (2009 version) [PM2 [12]]. It does not match the October 2008 or November 2008 versions of the Bitcoin White Paper, even though this document purports to be earlier than both of them. 455. The document has been disclosed with irregular metadata listed in relation to its Created and Last Accessed external metadata properties. [PM2 [6-11]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 456. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (presenting as a predecessor draft of the Bitcoin White Paper and supposedly written by him in early 2008), contrary to fact. Further, the document uses the same software (OpenOffice Writer) as used by Satoshi Nakamoto. 457. Dr Wright has positively asserted in these proceedings that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 458. The document bears Dr Wright’s name and contact details. 459. The contact details included refer to Charles Sturt University. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has claimed to have drafted and shared versions of the Bitcoin White Paper while studying at Charles Sturt University, and to have discussed the concepts with teaching staff at Charles Sturt University. [Wright1 [87], Wright4 [52]]. 460. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright positively relies upon the presence of the word “Timecoin” in documents he has disclosed as being precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper and thus forming part of the story behind his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Moreover, on the basis of his narrative, this is a detail which would have been known to him and to few, if any, others. [Wright1 [26], Wright4 [6.c.x.]]. 461. The document contains metadata that purports to pre-date the Bitcoin White Paper, indicating efforts at backdating to support Dr Wright’s claim. 462. Dr Wright claims, in his chain of custody information, that only he drafted this document. 463. Dr Wright has stated in these proceedings that this was a draft of a document under the name TimeCoin which later became bitcoin. [Exhibit CSW-5] 464. Dr Wright has not disclosed the apparent intermediate document from which this document was created. [PM2 [63]]. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 465. Dr Wright sought to explain away a number of the anomalous findings by saying that both this document and the Bitcoin White Paper were originally created in LATEX and that the commands in the original code accounted for such features as (a) the notes being in a font which was the same as would later be used for tables in the White Paper; (b) the OBJ character; (c) indentation in empty lines corresponding to the size of flowcharts later featuring in the Bitcoin White Paper; and (d) irregularities in hyphenation. See {CSW/2/26} to {CSW/2/28}; {Day3/139:21} to {Day3/152:8}. 466. Dr Wright sought to explain away the content of the document matching the March 2009 version of the Bitcoin White Paper rather than the earlier released versions by claiming that he does not “write things linearly”. He claimed to have used text in this early document, edited it out again in the August and October 2008 versions of the White Paper and then added it back in again for the March 2009 version. See {CSW/2/28} to {CSW/2/29}; {Day3/153:9} to {Day3/154:10}. 467. Dr Wright sought to explain away the irregular metadata by saying that his use of “Xcopy and related tools” somehow accounted for it: {CSW/2/28}. 468. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 468.1. The Bitcoin White Paper was not originally created in LATEX, as convincingly established by the expert evidence of Mr Rosendahl (which was agreed by Dr Wright’s expert, Mr Lynch, in the joint statement). There is equally no basis for saying that this document was originally created in LATEX. Furthermore, no LAT EX.tex file has been provided to support Dr Wright’s account in relation to the creation of this document. 468.2. The use of LATEX to create the document would not account for the presence of the OBJ (object replacement) character, which on the expert evidence is purely and simply an artefact of conversion from PDF: see PM2 [26-28] {H/17/8}. 468.3. Neither would the use of LATEX to create the document account for Dr Wright having predicted in a precursor document precisely the size required for diagrams and having applied coding to mark out indentations for the diagrams in what would be empty space in the document. 468.4. Neither would the use of LATEX to create the document account for there being irregular hyphenation in precisely the points where line breaks appear in the text of the Bitcoin White Paper. Dr Wright could only weakly account for this as him doing “unusual things” and deliberately including irregular hyphenation {Day3/10:11}. This explanation was nonsensical. Further, it assumed that his deliberate inclusion of irregular hyphenation just happened by coincidence to fall in the places where line breaks existed in the Bitcoin White Paper. 468.5. Dr Wright’s explanation for the irregular metadata was at odds with the independent expert evidence. It also assumed that this irregularity happened by coincidence to co-exist with the other irregularities, when in fact all suggest backdating. 468.6. Dr Wright’s explanation for the content of the document including changes which were made to the Bitcoin White Paper between its 2008 and 2009 versions is inherently unlikely. It also assumes that this irregularity happened by coincidence to co-exist with all the other irregularities, when in fact all suggest backdating. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 469. The explanations gathered in Appendix 1 to Dr Wright’s Closing confirm his reliance on both this document and the Bitcoin White Paper being based on earlier LATEX files and his allegation that the diagrams were created with LATEX. I find those explanations to be false, in view of my more general finding that the Bitcoin White Paper was not produced in LATEX. Other explanations (the indentations, the supposed ‘steganographic watermarking’ and formatting irregularities) are just a desperate attempt to explain away Dr Wright’s failure to be able to reproduce the Bitcoin White Paper in LATEX. The ‘non-linear’ working explanation (see [468.6] above) is ridiculous, in the light of all the other evidence which clearly indicates that this document was forged by Dr Wright. I so conclude. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

COPA Challenges Authenticity of Wright's Timecoin ODT Document

COPA 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 23 of 42. 21. OpenOffice 2.4 document (Reliance Document) {ID_000260} / {L2/294/1} 400. The document purports to be a precursor to the Bitcoin White Paper and is presented as if written by Dr Wright. It is dated 8-9 March 2008 in its metadata and Dr Wright states it to be from 2008 in his evidence in these proceedings. [Exhibit CSW-14] (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 401. The document contains language taken from the Bitcoin White Paper, but the document has been backdated as if to make it appear earlier than it is. [PM23 [41-45]]. 402. The document purports to have been created on 8 March 2008 and last saved on 9 March 2008 using OpenOffice.org version 2.4 with internal version number 680m12$Build9286. However, this version of OpenOffice.org was not uploaded for use until 16 March 2008 and was not generally released until 27 March 2008, both of which post-date the purported date of {ID_000260}. [PM23 [3, 6, 10, 24-34, 44]]. 403. Further, in addition to not being uploaded until 16 March 2008, the software in question (OpenOffice.org 2.4 680m12$Build-9286) was not even in development until after 14 March 2008. [PM23 [35-40]]. 404. The document contains content imported from an external document or documents. No external document has been disclosed. [PM23 [41c]]. 405. The document has an implausible edit time, matching precisely the time between its created and last saved timestamp. [PM23 [14-18]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 406. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting a precursor document to the Bitcoin White Paper, supposedly prepared in early 2008), contrary to fact. 407. Further, the document has been created using the same software (OpenOffice.org) and same version (version 2.4) as used by Satoshi Nakamoto to write all versions of the Bitcoin White Paper, indicating an intention to create a document within Dr Wright’s possession with the appearance of being a predecessor. [PM3 [23, 40, and 47]]. 408. Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 409. In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 410. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright sought to explain away the fact of this document being created with a version of OpenOffice that was issued after its supposed creation date by saying that he created the document in LATEX on 8/9 March 2008 but set the metadata using LATEX “so that it looks like I wrote this document in the future.” He explained this odd behaviour by saying that he had “taught the process of using versioning in this way to demonstrate aspects of making a determination about a document difficult to students in 2008 to 2012”. See {CSW/2/33}. 411. He sought to explain away the indications that the document had imported content (including from the Bitcoin White Paper, supposedly written a year later) by saying that it was a function of the document having been created in LATEX and then recompiled later. See {CSW/2/34}. 412. He sought to explain away the implausible editing time by saying that it was a result of him using the Sweave program with LATEX, which (as he believed) caused metadata time fields to be updated with re-compilations. See {CSW/2/34}. 413. This explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 413.1. Dr Wright has disclosed no LATEX original of this document. It is inherently implausible that he would recall the production of such an original 15 years on without having a copy. 413.2. His story of setting the metadata to make the document misleadingly appear to have been created later is at odds with his evidence in the Kleiman proceedings that: “I do not manipulate metadata on things for any purpose”: {L15/131/71}. 413.3. His story of using this document in 2008 as a demonstration tool for students is one which beggars belief. It presupposes that, having made substantial efforts to remain anonymous, the real Satoshi used a document relating to his prospective Bitcoin project as a demonstration tool for students, when he could have used any other document to make the point. 413.4. In his oral evidence, Dr Wright was driven to answer this point by claiming that he had been quite open about his identity as Satoshi, revealing that identity to many, many people, including the tax office in Australia, government officials, “individuals at companies I knew” as well as “my students” (all unnamed, save for reference to Shoaib Yousuf and David Bridges, who were clear that Dr Wright had not revealed himself as Satoshi to them before the public revelation in 2015/16): {Day3/43:19} to {Day3/45:8}. This was not only implausible, but also at odds with his evidence in the Kleiman proceedings, where he told the Court that only Don Lynam and Gareth Williams knew his identity as Satoshi by early 2011: {L15/125/102}. 413.5. Dr Wright’s story also requires his explanation of the signs of imported content and of the implausible edit time to be accepted, despite their being unsupported by any independent expert evidence. (d) Conclusion 414. Dr Wright’s explanations show how he builds lie upon lie in his attempt to explain away Mr Madden’s convincing analysis which wholly supports COPA’s submissions and case. I find this document was plainly forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 23 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 23 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 21. OpenOffice 2.4 document (Reliance Document) {ID_000260} / {L2/294/1} 400. The document purports to be a precursor to the Bitcoin White Paper and is presented as if written by Dr Wright. It is dated 8-9 March 2008 in its metadata and Dr Wright states it to be from 2008 in his evidence in these proceedings. [Exhibit CSW-14] (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 401. The document contains language taken from the Bitcoin White Paper, but the document has been backdated as if to make it appear earlier than it is. [PM23 [41-45]]. 402. The document purports to have been created on 8 March 2008 and last saved on 9 March 2008 using OpenOffice.org version 2.4 with internal version number 680m12$Build9286. However, this version of OpenOffice.org was not uploaded for use until 16 March 2008 and was not generally released until 27 March 2008, both of which post-date the purported date of {ID_000260}. [PM23 [3, 6, 10, 24-34, 44]]. 403. Further, in addition to not being uploaded until 16 March 2008, the software in question (OpenOffice.org 2.4 680m12$Build-9286) was not even in development until after 14 March 2008. [PM23 [35-40]]. 404. The document contains content imported from an external document or documents. No external document has been disclosed. [PM23 [41c]]. 405. The document has an implausible edit time, matching precisely the time between its created and last saved timestamp. [PM23 [14-18]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 406. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting a precursor document to the Bitcoin White Paper, supposedly prepared in early 2008), contrary to fact. 407. Further, the document has been created using the same software (OpenOffice.org) and same version (version 2.4) as used by Satoshi Nakamoto to write all versions of the Bitcoin White Paper, indicating an intention to create a document within Dr Wright’s possession with the appearance of being a predecessor. [PM3 [23, 40, and 47]]. 408. Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 409. In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 410. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright sought to explain away the fact of this document being created with a version of OpenOffice that was issued after its supposed creation date by saying that he created the document in LATEX on 8/9 March 2008 but set the metadata using LATEX “so that it looks like I wrote this document in the future.” He explained this odd behaviour by saying that he had “taught the process of using versioning in this way to demonstrate aspects of making a determination about a document difficult to students in 2008 to 2012”. See {CSW/2/33}. 411. He sought to explain away the indications that the document had imported content (including from the Bitcoin White Paper, supposedly written a year later) by saying that it was a function of the document having been created in LATEX and then recompiled later. See {CSW/2/34}. 412. He sought to explain away the implausible editing time by saying that it was a result of him using the Sweave program with LATEX, which (as he believed) caused metadata time fields to be updated with re-compilations. See {CSW/2/34}. 413. This explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 413.1. Dr Wright has disclosed no LATEX original of this document. It is inherently implausible that he would recall the production of such an original 15 years on without having a copy. 413.2. His story of setting the metadata to make the document misleadingly appear to have been created later is at odds with his evidence in the Kleiman proceedings that: “I do not manipulate metadata on things for any purpose”: {L15/131/71}. 413.3. His story of using this document in 2008 as a demonstration tool for students is one which beggars belief. It presupposes that, having made substantial efforts to remain anonymous, the real Satoshi used a document relating to his prospective Bitcoin project as a demonstration tool for students, when he could have used any other document to make the point. 413.4. In his oral evidence, Dr Wright was driven to answer this point by claiming that he had been quite open about his identity as Satoshi, revealing that identity to many, many people, including the tax office in Australia, government officials, “individuals at companies I knew” as well as “my students” (all unnamed, save for reference to Shoaib Yousuf and David Bridges, who were clear that Dr Wright had not revealed himself as Satoshi to them before the public revelation in 2015/16): {Day3/43:19} to {Day3/45:8}. This was not only implausible, but also at odds with his evidence in the Kleiman proceedings, where he told the Court that only Don Lynam and Gareth Williams knew his identity as Satoshi by early 2011: {L15/125/102}. 413.5. Dr Wright’s story also requires his explanation of the signs of imported content and of the implausible edit time to be accepted, despite their being unsupported by any independent expert evidence. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 414. Dr Wright’s explanations show how he builds lie upon lie in his attempt to explain away Mr Madden’s convincing analysis which wholly supports COPA’s submissions and case. I find this document was plainly forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

Craig Wright Accused of Forging Early Bitcoin Document with Modern Software

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 21 of 42. 19. Tominaka Nakamoto: Monumenta Nipponica {ID_004019} / {L2/245/1} 355. The document presents as a printout of a journal article concerning a historical figure called “Nakamoto”, purportedly downloaded on 5 January 2008, and annotated by Dr Wright by hand in his own handwriting in terms associating himself with that historical figure “Nakamoto”. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 356. The document has been backdated. [PM6 [55]. The timestamp at the top of the document has been altered, with the digits of the hour and of the year entered in different font to the rest of the timestamp. [PM6 [3]]. 357. The document is a hand-annotated printout of a digital document [PM6 [5]]. The underlying digital document has not been disclosed. 358. The original source of the document was discovered by searching on the internet. [PM6 [27-30]]. 359. The genuine date of the source document is not 2008, but 2015. The document remains available online now. [PM6 [27-32]]. 360. The original document was downloaded from the academic repository website JSTOR. By inspection of the footer against a comparator data set of over 180 other documents downloaded from JSTOR, it is possible to identify 7 epochs during which the design of the footer of JSTOR documents changed in the decade between January 2007 and December 2016. The dates of changes of design can be pinpointed to six specific days in that decade. By comparison of the footer of {ID_004019} to that data set, it is possible to establish that the footer is contemporary to the period between 19 March 2013 and 22 March 2016. [PM6 [33-47]]. 361. Further, by comparison with 10 other independently-downloaded documents dated 5 Jan 2008 within that dataset, it can be established that the footer of the {ID_004019} is notably different from those on documents from 2008, and therefore is not contemporaneous with such documents from 2008. [PM6 [48-51]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 362. The underlying digital document has not been disclosed. 363. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. by suggesting that he had read a paper about Tominaga Nakamoto before he coined the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto), contrary to fact. 364. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright claims that the name “Satoshi Nakamoto” was chosen due to his ‘admiration for the philosopher Tominaga Nakamoto’. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright1 [66]]. 365. Dr Wright has publicly asserted this document to be supportive of his claim. 366. Dr Wright has publicly maintained the authenticity of this document in social media posts. 367. This document was photographed by Dr Wright for transmission via WhatsApp [PM6 [7]]. The photograph was taken around 1 week before this document was scanned into PDF form. This is consistent with other examples within disclosure where Dr Wright has photographed other documents bearing indicia of tampering, for sending via WhatsApp, before they were scanned and disclosed. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 368. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright claimed that the document dating from 2015 which Mr Madden downloaded from the internet and identified as the source document was copied from his document and then edited. He claims that this was done after he had mentioned the document as his inspiration. See {CSW/2/68}. In his oral evidence, Dr Wright added that this had been done by the person operating the gwern.net website, who he claimed had been working together with Ira Kleiman to discredit him: {Day2/21:13} to {Day2/22:16}. Thus, Dr Wright’s claim is that his document, with an “accessed” date from 2008 is genuine and that a false version was produced by his enemies to reflect an “accessed” date from 2015 and uploaded to the internet in order to undermine his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 369. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest, for the following reasons: 369.1. It is inherently implausible that Dr Wright’s version should be authentic and the version accessed from the internet should have been doctored, since the numerals in the “accessed” date are misaligned in Dr Wright’s version (suggesting manipulation) but the numerals in that date are perfectly aligned in the version on the internet. 369.2. There is a second powerful reason why Dr Wright’s version is inauthentic, namely that the footer design corresponds to JSTOR documents dating from 2015 and not to such documents dating from 2008. Mr Madden has reviewed a large sample of JSTOR documents and established that the footer design was updated at set points in time, so that he can be confident from the footer design that Dr Wright’s document does not date to 2008. He was unshaken in that position on crossexamination: {Day16/66:7} to {Day16/68:7}. 369.3. Although Dr Wright asserted that different JSTOR repositories had footer designs updating at different times and that he had documents to make good that proposition ({Day2/20:13} to {Day2/21:6}), there is no documentary support for that assertion (which is at odds with Mr Madden’s findings). It is reasonably to be inferred that, if that assertion could be made good, Dr Wright’s well-resourced legal team would have done so. 369.4. Dr Wright’s essential conspiracy theory does not work as a matter of the dates. He gave the interview in which he publicly cited this document as his inspiration for the Nakamoto name in December 2019 (see {L16/86/1}; {L16/47/1}). The document which he now says was doctored and released to discredit him has been available online in precisely the same form since 2016: see PM6, [30]. 369.5. There is not a shred of evidence for Dr Wright’s conspiracy theory. It is also an odd story, even on its own terms, since Ira Kleiman’s claim depended on saying that Dr Wright was part of “Satoshi Nakamoto”. (d) Conclusion 370. I can only agree with COPA’s submissions. The document was plainly forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 21 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 21 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 19. Tominaka Nakamoto: Monumenta Nipponica {ID_004019} / {L2/245/1} 355. The document presents as a printout of a journal article concerning a historical figure called “Nakamoto”, purportedly downloaded on 5 January 2008, and annotated by Dr Wright by hand in his own handwriting in terms associating himself with that historical figure “Nakamoto”. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 356. The document has been backdated. [PM6 [55]. The timestamp at the top of the document has been altered, with the digits of the hour and of the year entered in different font to the rest of the timestamp. [PM6 [3]]. 357. The document is a hand-annotated printout of a digital document [PM6 [5]]. The underlying digital document has not been disclosed. 358. The original source of the document was discovered by searching on the internet. [PM6 [27-30]]. 359. The genuine date of the source document is not 2008, but 2015. The document remains available online now. [PM6 [27-32]]. 360. The original document was downloaded from the academic repository website JSTOR. By inspection of the footer against a comparator data set of over 180 other documents downloaded from JSTOR, it is possible to identify 7 epochs during which the design of the footer of JSTOR documents changed in the decade between January 2007 and December 2016. The dates of changes of design can be pinpointed to six specific days in that decade. By comparison of the footer of {ID_004019} to that data set, it is possible to establish that the footer is contemporary to the period between 19 March 2013 and 22 March 2016. [PM6 [33-47]]. 361. Further, by comparison with 10 other independently-downloaded documents dated 5 Jan 2008 within that dataset, it can be established that the footer of the {ID_004019} is notably different from those on documents from 2008, and therefore is not contemporaneous with such documents from 2008. [PM6 [48-51]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 362. The underlying digital document has not been disclosed. 363. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. by suggesting that he had read a paper about Tominaga Nakamoto before he coined the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto), contrary to fact. 364. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright claims that the name “Satoshi Nakamoto” was chosen due to his ‘admiration for the philosopher Tominaga Nakamoto’. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright1 [66]]. 365. Dr Wright has publicly asserted this document to be supportive of his claim. 366. Dr Wright has publicly maintained the authenticity of this document in social media posts. 367. This document was photographed by Dr Wright for transmission via WhatsApp [PM6 [7]]. The photograph was taken around 1 week before this document was scanned into PDF form. This is consistent with other examples within disclosure where Dr Wright has photographed other documents bearing indicia of tampering, for sending via WhatsApp, before they were scanned and disclosed. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 368. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright claimed that the document dating from 2015 which Mr Madden downloaded from the internet and identified as the source document was copied from his document and then edited. He claims that this was done after he had mentioned the document as his inspiration. See {CSW/2/68}. In his oral evidence, Dr Wright added that this had been done by the person operating the gwern.net website, who he claimed had been working together with Ira Kleiman to discredit him: {Day2/21:13} to {Day2/22:16}. Thus, Dr Wright’s claim is that his document, with an “accessed” date from 2008 is genuine and that a false version was produced by his enemies to reflect an “accessed” date from 2015 and uploaded to the internet in order to undermine his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 369. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest, for the following reasons: 369.1. It is inherently implausible that Dr Wright’s version should be authentic and the version accessed from the internet should have been doctored, since the numerals in the “accessed” date are misaligned in Dr Wright’s version (suggesting manipulation) but the numerals in that date are perfectly aligned in the version on the internet. 369.2. There is a second powerful reason why Dr Wright’s version is inauthentic, namely that the footer design corresponds to JSTOR documents dating from 2015 and not to such documents dating from 2008. Mr Madden has reviewed a large sample of JSTOR documents and established that the footer design was updated at set points in time, so that he can be confident from the footer design that Dr Wright’s document does not date to 2008. He was unshaken in that position on crossexamination: {Day16/66:7} to {Day16/68:7}. 369.3. Although Dr Wright asserted that different JSTOR repositories had footer designs updating at different times and that he had documents to make good that proposition ({Day2/20:13} to {Day2/21:6}), there is no documentary support for that assertion (which is at odds with Mr Madden’s findings). It is reasonably to be inferred that, if that assertion could be made good, Dr Wright’s well-resourced legal team would have done so. 369.4. Dr Wright’s essential conspiracy theory does not work as a matter of the dates. He gave the interview in which he publicly cited this document as his inspiration for the Nakamoto name in December 2019 (see {L16/86/1}; {L16/47/1}). The document which he now says was doctored and released to discredit him has been available online in precisely the same form since 2016: see PM6, [30]. 369.5. There is not a shred of evidence for Dr Wright’s conspiracy theory. It is also an odd story, even on its own terms, since Ira Kleiman’s claim depended on saying that Dr Wright was part of “Satoshi Nakamoto”. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 370. I can only agree with COPA’s submissions. The document was plainly forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

COPA Challenges Authenticity of Craig Wright’s Tominaga Nakamoto Document

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 20 of 42. 18. “ESDT.tex” {ID_004736} {PTR-F/93/1} 340. The document is a LaTeX source presented as if it was precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper created during Dr Wright’s employment at BDO. Dr Wright relies upon it as a draft addressing technical concepts which influenced 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 341. This document is among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 342. Copies of the document are also located on the Samsung Drive. These copies display signs of metadata editing and clock manipulation. [PM46 [74-79] H/278/17] 343. A related LaTeX file has been recovered which encodes the same textual content in a different way. That document had been deleted but was recoverable from within the Samsung Drive. The structure of that file is consistent with the file being generated automatically by software conversion tools (rather than being authored by hand). [Madden4 [67-70] H/278/16]. 344. There is a related file {ID_004735} which appears intended to create an image for the paper. The code in that file is consistent with having been generated by conversion tools such as Aspose. [Madden3 [75] G/5/31] 345. A related document, ESDT.pdf, was recovered from the Samsung Drive. ESDT.pdf was a compiled form of {ID_004736} but was deleted and emptied from the Recycle Bin in September 2023 [PM46 [41-52] H/278/10]. The metadata associated with the deleted file indicates that it was modified on 16 September 2023, but the other timestamps have been backdated to 31 October 2007. 346. The metadata of this document (when compared with metadata of other documents related to it) displays signs of metadata editing directly using specialised metadata editing tools. [Madden3 [52-63] G/5/23] 347. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 348. 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. 349. The further effect of tampering is to lend support to Dr Wright’s new position that the Bitcoin White Paper was created in LaTeX. That story is a recent product of Dr Wright’s change in his account. 350. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. Paragraph 45 of the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 351. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 351.1. It is said to be among 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] 351.2. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is 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] 352. 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 353. Dr Wright claimed that his use of Xcopy had caused the load file metadata for this and two related documents to all have creation times at precisely the same time on 19 September 2017, with August 2008 accessed and modified times for this document and one other related one. He also claimed that he was still accessing files at BDO in 2008 and so that these may have been copied from a different drive: {Day5/102:21} and following. See Wright11 {CSW/2/43} for an example of him claiming how Xcopy works. 354. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 354.1. 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. 354.2. Mr Madden states that Xcopy simply does not have the effect that Dr Wright claims. This was also the view of Mr Lynch, as recorded in their Joint Report: {Q/6/4}. 354.3. Dr Wright’s excuse about accessing files at BDO in 2008 is inconsistent with his claim that the files on the BDO Drive are a time capsule and taken from a capture of the BDO files he had in 2007. 354.4. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004736 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 20 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 20 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 18. “ESDT.tex” {ID_004736} {PTR-F/93/1} 340. The document is a LaTeX source presented as if it was precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper created during Dr Wright’s employment at BDO. Dr Wright relies upon it as a draft addressing technical concepts which influenced 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 341. This document is among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 342. Copies of the document are also located on the Samsung Drive. These copies display signs of metadata editing and clock manipulation. [PM46 [74-79] H/278/17] 343. A related LaTeX file has been recovered which encodes the same textual content in a different way. That document had been deleted but was recoverable from within the Samsung Drive. The structure of that file is consistent with the file being generated automatically by software conversion tools (rather than being authored by hand). [Madden4 [67-70] H/278/16]. 344. There is a related file {ID_004735} which appears intended to create an image for the paper. The code in that file is consistent with having been generated by conversion tools such as Aspose. [Madden3 [75] G/5/31] 345. A related document, ESDT.pdf, was recovered from the Samsung Drive. ESDT.pdf was a compiled form of {ID_004736} but was deleted and emptied from the Recycle Bin in September 2023 [PM46 [41-52] H/278/10]. The metadata associated with the deleted file indicates that it was modified on 16 September 2023, but the other timestamps have been backdated to 31 October 2007. 346. The metadata of this document (when compared with metadata of other documents related to it) displays signs of metadata editing directly using specialised metadata editing tools. [Madden3 [52-63] G/5/23] 347. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 348. 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. 349. The further effect of tampering is to lend support to Dr Wright’s new position that the Bitcoin White Paper was created in LaTeX. That story is a recent product of Dr Wright’s change in his account. 350. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. Paragraph 45 of the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 351. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 351.1. It is said to be among 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" 351.2. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is 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." 352. 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 353. Dr Wright claimed that his use of Xcopy had caused the load file metadata for this and two related documents to all have creation times at precisely the same time on 19 September 2017, with August 2008 accessed and modified times for this document and one other related one. He also claimed that he was still accessing files at BDO in 2008 and so that these may have been copied from a different drive: {Day5/102:21} and following. See Wright11 {CSW/2/43} for an example of him claiming how Xcopy works. 354. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 354.1. 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. 354.2. Mr Madden states that Xcopy simply does not have the effect that Dr Wright claims. This was also the view of Mr Lynch, as recorded in their Joint Report: {Q/6/4}. 354.3. Dr Wright’s excuse about accessing files at BDO in 2008 is inconsistent with his claim that the files on the BDO Drive are a time capsule and taken from a capture of the BDO files he had in 2007. 354.4. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004736 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

Craig Wright’s LaTeX document "ESDT.tex" Faces Forgery Allegations from COPA

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 19 of 42. 17. “LPA.tex” and “LP1.tex” {ID_004722} {PTR-F/79/1} and {ID_004723} {PTRF/80/1} 328. These are two LaTeX source documents presented as if they are precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper. The first presents as an article with Satoshi named as author, while the second presents as a version of the same article with Dr Wright named as author. Each addresses quorum systems, a subject which Dr Wright now maintains influenced his development of Bitcoin. By their presence in BDOPC.raw, the documents purport to pre-date 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 329. These documents are among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 330. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted versions of these documents to the disclosed versions shows that they did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. They were modified within BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. [PM46 [111 – 117] H/278/38] 331. The modifications made included: 331.1. In respect of {ID_004722}, altering the dates of articles referred to, respectively from “2009” to “2006”, and from “2016” to “?” [PM46 [112] H/278/39]. 331.2. Removing lines of the document relating to the previously-cited papers from 2009 and 2016 (while leaving blank lines in their place) [PM46 [113] H/278/39]. 331.3. In respect of {ID_004723}, deleting lines referring to previously-cited articles dating from after 2007 (while leaving blank lines in their place) [PM46 [117-118] H/278/41]. 331.4. Altering the metadata of the documents such that they appeared to be created earlier than they were [PM46 [111 and 119] H/278/38]. 332. 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 333. 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. 334. The further effect of tampering is to lend support to Dr Wright’s new position that the Bitcoin White Paper was created in LaTeX. That story is a recent product of Dr Wright’s change in his account. 335. These documents were added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 336. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to these documents: 336.1. {ID_004722} is said to be one of Dr Wright’s “LaTeX files which, when compiled, generate draft articles under the pseudonym “Satoshi” or “Satoshi Nakamoto” relating to concepts later used in the Bitcoin White Paper.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/3] 336.2. {ID_004722} is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is “a LaTeX file coding for an article titled “Predicates in Quorum Systems”, which discusses concepts that underpin the technology of Bitcoin, such as the use of quorum systems to provide security in distributed systems. The author of the paper is stated to be “Satoshi” and the article bears the date 30 August 2006.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/3] 336.3. {ID_004723} is said to be “a version of the “Predicates in Quorum Systems” paper at {ID_004722}, but listing Dr Wright as the author rather than “Satoshi”. ” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/6] 337. 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 338. Dr Wright claimed, as set out above, that these were planted documents by Mr AgerHanssen or someone associated with him. {Day5/86:14} He also rejected the use of ChatGPT. 339. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 339.1. 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. 339.2. The story about these being planted by someone is addressed in earlier examples in this Schedule. 339.3. The differences between the InfoDef09.raw and the versions subsequently disclosed and relied upon showed that the changes were to change tenses from the deleted version (which talked about Bitcoin in the past tense) to the future tense in the disclosed versions. This is consistent with the documents being edited to support his case. 339.4. The deleted earlier versions also contained references to papers post-dating the purported 2007 date, such as ‘Xia et Al’ (2016). All such references were deleted and in the disclosed version replaced by a ‘?’ – clearly to indicate that a reference needed to be added. The evident reason that these, and only these, references were removed, is to remove what would otherwise have been obvious indications that the document post-dated 2007. 339.5. It is clear that Dr Wright did use ChatGPT and these documents included classic indicia of how ChatGPT formats references (set out above). 339.6. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004722 and ID_004723 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 19 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 19 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 17. “LPA.tex” and “LP1.tex” {ID_004722} {PTR-F/79/1} and {ID_004723} {PTRF/80/1} 328. These are two LaTeX source documents presented as if they are precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper. The first presents as an article with Satoshi named as author, while the second presents as a version of the same article with Dr Wright named as author. Each addresses quorum systems, a subject which Dr Wright now maintains influenced his development of Bitcoin. By their presence in BDOPC.raw, the documents purport to pre-date 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 329. These documents are among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 330. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted versions of these documents to the disclosed versions shows that they did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. They were modified within BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. [PM46 [111 – 117] H/278/38] 331. The modifications made included: 331.1. In respect of {ID_004722}, altering the dates of articles referred to, respectively from “2009” to “2006”, and from “2016” to “?” [PM46 [112] H/278/39]. 331.2. Removing lines of the document relating to the previously-cited papers from 2009 and 2016 (while leaving blank lines in their place) [PM46 [113] H/278/39]. 331.3. In respect of {ID_004723}, deleting lines referring to previously-cited articles dating from after 2007 (while leaving blank lines in their place) [PM46 [117-118] H/278/41]. 331.4. Altering the metadata of the documents such that they appeared to be created earlier than they were [PM46 [111 and 119] H/278/38]. 332. 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 333. 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. 334. The further effect of tampering is to lend support to Dr Wright’s new position that the Bitcoin White Paper was created in LaTeX. That story is a recent product of Dr Wright’s change in his account. 335. These documents were added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 336. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to these documents: 336.1. {ID_004722} is said to be one of Dr Wright’s “LaTeX files which, when compiled, generate draft articles under the pseudonym “Satoshi” or “Satoshi Nakamoto” relating to concepts later used in the Bitcoin White Paper.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/3] “LaTeX files which, when compiled, generate draft articles under the pseudonym “Satoshi” or “Satoshi Nakamoto” relating to concepts later used in the Bitcoin White Paper.” 336.2. {ID_004722} is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is “a LaTeX file coding for an article titled “Predicates in Quorum Systems”, which discusses concepts that underpin the technology of Bitcoin, such as the use of quorum systems to provide security in distributed systems. The author of the paper is stated to be “Satoshi” and the article bears the date 30 August 2006.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/3] “Predicates in Quorum Systems”, which discusses concepts that underpin the technology of Bitcoin, such as the use of quorum systems to provide security in distributed systems. The author of the paper is stated to be “Satoshi” and the article bears the date 30 August 2006.” 336.3. {ID_004723} is said to be “a version of the “Predicates in Quorum Systems” paper at {ID_004722}, but listing Dr Wright as the author rather than “Satoshi”. ” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/6] “Predicates in Quorum Systems” “Satoshi”. 337. 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 338. Dr Wright claimed, as set out above, that these were planted documents by Mr AgerHanssen or someone associated with him. {Day5/86:14} He also rejected the use of ChatGPT. 339. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 339.1. 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. 339.2. The story about these being planted by someone is addressed in earlier examples in this Schedule. 339.3. The differences between the InfoDef09.raw and the versions subsequently disclosed and relied upon showed that the changes were to change tenses from the deleted version (which talked about Bitcoin in the past tense) to the future tense in the disclosed versions. This is consistent with the documents being edited to support his case. 339.4. The deleted earlier versions also contained references to papers post-dating the purported 2007 date, such as ‘Xia et Al’ (2016). All such references were deleted and in the disclosed version replaced by a ‘?’ – clearly to indicate that a reference needed to be added. The evident reason that these, and only these, references were removed, is to remove what would otherwise have been obvious indications that the document post-dated 2007. 339.5. It is clear that Dr Wright did use ChatGPT and these documents included classic indicia of how ChatGPT formats references (set out above). 339.6. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004722 and ID_004723 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

Satoshi or Sham? The Dubious Nature of Craig Wright's LaTeX Documents

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 17 of 42. 15. “Internal Controls…Backend Operations” {ID_004733} {PTR-F/90/1} 298. The is an RTF file titled “Internal Controls and Immutable Logging in Auditing Backend Operations of Messaging Systems.rtf”. Dr Wright has relied upon it as showing interest in / research on the concept of immutable logging which he claims influenced his development of Bitcoin. By its presence in BDOPC.raw, the document purports to predate 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 299. This document is among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 300. 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] [PM46 [149] H/278/53] 301. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted version of this document to the disclosed version shows that this document did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. It was modified within BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. 302. The modifications included: 302.1. altering the metadata of the file to make it appear to have been created earlier than it actually was [PM46 [146]]; and 302.2. deleting a reference to “The Data Protection Act 2018” and replacing it with the words “data protection law globally” [PM46 [147] H/278/52]. 303. The Data Protection Act 2018 did not exist in 2007. 304. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 305. 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. 306. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. Paragraph 45 of the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 307. 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. 308. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 308.1. It is said to be among 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] 308.2. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is a “paper titled “Internal Controls and Immutable Logging in Auditing Backend Operations of Messaging Systems”. The concept of immutable logging discussed in this paper connect Dr Wright’s earlier research on hash chains with the blockchain technology that underpins Bitcoin.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/7] (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 309. Dr Wright again claimed that the BDO Drive had been hacked, which he said explained the fact that the document was authored in a version of Window Text Editor dating from 2020. In relation to the deletions between the versions disclosed as the reliance document and the version on InfoDef09.raw, Dr Wright claimed that the removal of “Data Protection Act 2018” from the precursor document on InfoDef09.raw to be replaced by “data protection law globally…” arose because it referred to Sarbanes-Oxley in America. He disputed that this change showed the direction of editing: {Day5/100:8} and following. 310. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 310.1. 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. 310.2. The removal of “Data Protection Act 2018” from what was plainly the precursor document on InfoDef09.raw, to be replaced by “data protection law globally…”, clearly indicates a document which had been written at a later date being changed to remove what would be anachronisms. 310.3. Dr Wright’s excuse about someone using Word to create a document and then changing the format does not make any sense in the circumstances or explain the irregularities. 310.4. The use of a version of Windows Text Editor dating from 2020 shows these documents were not contemporaneous to the alleged time capsule. 310.5. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_000473 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 17 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 17 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 15. “Internal Controls…Backend Operations” {ID_004733} {PTR-F/90/1} 298. The is an RTF file titled “Internal Controls and Immutable Logging in Auditing Backend Operations of Messaging Systems.rtf”. Dr Wright has relied upon it as showing interest in / research on the concept of immutable logging which he claims influenced his development of Bitcoin. By its presence in BDOPC.raw, the document purports to predate 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 299. This document is among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 300. 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] [PM46 [149] H/278/53] 301. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted version of this document to the disclosed version shows that this document did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. It was modified within BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. 302. The modifications included: 302.1. altering the metadata of the file to make it appear to have been created earlier than it actually was [PM46 [146]]; and 302.2. deleting a reference to “The Data Protection Act 2018” and replacing it with the words “data protection law globally” [PM46 [147] H/278/52]. 303. The Data Protection Act 2018 did not exist in 2007. 304. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 305. 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. 306. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. Paragraph 45 of the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 307. 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. 308. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 308.1. It is said to be among 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" 308.2. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is a “paper titled “Internal Controls and Immutable Logging in Auditing Backend Operations of Messaging Systems”. The concept of immutable logging discussed in this paper connect Dr Wright’s earlier research on hash chains with the blockchain technology that underpins Bitcoin.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/7] “paper titled “Internal Controls and Immutable Logging in Auditing Backend Operations of Messaging Systems”. The concept of immutable logging discussed in this paper connect Dr Wright’s earlier research on hash chains with the blockchain technology that underpins Bitcoin.” (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 309. Dr Wright again claimed that the BDO Drive had been hacked, which he said explained the fact that the document was authored in a version of Window Text Editor dating from 2020. In relation to the deletions between the versions disclosed as the reliance document and the version on InfoDef09.raw, Dr Wright claimed that the removal of “Data Protection Act 2018” from the precursor document on InfoDef09.raw to be replaced by “data protection law globally…” arose because it referred to Sarbanes-Oxley in America. He disputed that this change showed the direction of editing: {Day5/100:8} and following. 310. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 310.1. 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. 310.2. The removal of “Data Protection Act 2018” from what was plainly the precursor document on InfoDef09.raw, to be replaced by “data protection law globally…”, clearly indicates a document which had been written at a later date being changed to remove what would be anachronisms. 310.3. Dr Wright’s excuse about someone using Word to create a document and then changing the format does not make any sense in the circumstances or explain the irregularities. 310.4. The use of a version of Windows Text Editor dating from 2020 shows these documents were not contemporaneous to the alleged time capsule. 310.5. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_000473 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

Discrepancies Found in Craig Wright’s Document on Immutable Logging: COPA Alleges Tampering

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 18 of 44. 14. Variations on “Secure and Trustworthy Voting” {ID_004732} {PTR-F/89/1} and {ID_004734} {PTR-F/91/1} 284. These documents are two versions of a long paper addressing quorum-based voting in distributed networks and titled “Secure and Trustworthy Voting”. This is a subject which Dr Wright now maintains influenced his development of Bitcoin. One is a plaintext document, “Q.txt”. Another is an RTF equivalent of the same document, “IT1581b.rtf”. By their presence in BDOPC.raw, the documents purport to pre-date 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 285. These documents are among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 286. The document {ID_004734} 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], [PM46 [149 H/278/53] 287. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted version of these documents to the disclosed versions shows that they did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. They were modified within BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. [PM46 [136 and 141] H/278/46] 288. The modifications included the following: 288.1. In {ID_004732}, altering the words “blockchains” to “hash chains” [PM46 [136] H/278/46]. 288.2. In {ID_004732}, deleting references to the dates of articles published in 2016 and 2017 and replacing them with “(?)” [PM46 [136] H/278/46]. 288.3. Deleting a long paginated Table of Contents, with page numbers referring to formatted pages. The inclusion of formatted page numbers in a plain text document is not consistent with the technical limitations of plain text documents. It is consistent with a plain text document being created by copying and pasting from a pre-existing MS Word or RTF document [PM46 [136.c.] H/278/47]. 288.4. In respect of {ID_004734}, the equivalent edits as displayed in {ID_004732} [PM46 [141] H/278/49 (note incorrect reference in that paragraph to {ID_004737}]. 289. 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 290. 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. 291. These documents were added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 292. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to these documents: 292.1. Both are said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because they are versions of “a paper titled: “Secure and Trustworthy Voting in Distributed Networks: A Quorum-Based Approach with Hash Chains and Public Key Infrastructure”. Dr Wright produced this paper during his Master of Information Systems Security research at Charles Sturt University. The paper considers secure voting mechanisms in distributed systems through a combination of quorum-based voting, hash chains, and Public Key Infrastructure, which is analogous to core elements of Bitcoin.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/6]. 292.2. They are said to be “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] 293. 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 294. Dr Wright claimed that these were added to the BDO Drive back in 2007 and also made reference to him copying from a drive that was linked somehow, saying that he was creating a VMware image. Dr Wright accepted that ID_004734 cannot be authentic to 2007 because it was created with a 2020 version of Windows Rich Text Editor, but said this must have been due to the hack by Mr Ager-Hanssen or his associates: {Day5/95:9} and following. 295. Dr Wright sought to explain away the fact that there were precursor documents on InfoDef09.raw which showed references to texts from 2016 and 2017 and that those references had been replaced by question marks in the present document by saying that they were accounted for by his “horrible way of working” {Day9/96:24} and following. 296. Dr Wright sought to explain away the presence of a contents table in the version on InfoDef09.raw, which did not exist in this document, by saying that somebody (presumably Mr Ager-Hanssen or an associate) had created a contents table: {Day9/97:24} and following. 297. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 297.1. Dr Wright’s story about creating some form of VMware image does not make any sense and is a further example of obfuscation by Dr Wright. 297.2. There is no evidence to back up Dr Wright’s claimed technical effect of how these files interact when converted from one format to the other. 297.3. The precursor documents found on InfoDef09.raw included a table of contents and references to papers published post-2007. The versions Dr Wright manipulated had dropped the table of contents (because it would not make sense to have one in this sort of document) and had replaced what would be anachronistic references with question marks again. The story of this happening as a result of the supposed hack, as well as being without supporting evidence, presupposes an extraordinary effort at creating multiple fake versions of documents on the different raw images in a short space of time. 297.4. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004732 and ID_004734 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 18 of 44. 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 18 of 44. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 14. Variations on “Secure and Trustworthy Voting” {ID_004732} {PTR-F/89/1} and {ID_004734} {PTR-F/91/1} 284. These documents are two versions of a long paper addressing quorum-based voting in distributed networks and titled “Secure and Trustworthy Voting”. This is a subject which Dr Wright now maintains influenced his development of Bitcoin. One is a plaintext document, “Q.txt”. Another is an RTF equivalent of the same document, “IT1581b.rtf”. By their presence in BDOPC.raw, the documents purport to pre-date 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 285. These documents are among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 286. The document {ID_004734} 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], [PM46 [149 H/278/53] 287. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted version of these documents to the disclosed versions shows that they did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. They were modified within BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. [PM46 [136 and 141] H/278/46] 288. The modifications included the following: 288.1. In {ID_004732}, altering the words “blockchains” to “hash chains” [PM46 [136] H/278/46]. 288.2. In {ID_004732}, deleting references to the dates of articles published in 2016 and 2017 and replacing them with “(?)” [PM46 [136] H/278/46]. 288.3. Deleting a long paginated Table of Contents, with page numbers referring to formatted pages. The inclusion of formatted page numbers in a plain text document is not consistent with the technical limitations of plain text documents. It is consistent with a plain text document being created by copying and pasting from a pre-existing MS Word or RTF document [PM46 [136.c.] H/278/47]. 288.4. In respect of {ID_004734}, the equivalent edits as displayed in {ID_004732} [PM46 [141] H/278/49 (note incorrect reference in that paragraph to {ID_004737}]. 289. 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 290. 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. 291. These documents were added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 292. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to these documents: 292.1. Both are said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because they are versions of “a paper titled: “Secure and Trustworthy Voting in Distributed Networks: A Quorum-Based Approach with Hash Chains and Public Key Infrastructure”. Dr Wright produced this paper during his Master of Information Systems Security research at Charles Sturt University. The paper considers secure voting mechanisms in distributed systems through a combination of quorum-based voting, hash chains, and Public Key Infrastructure, which is analogous to core elements of Bitcoin.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/6]. “a paper titled: “Secure and Trustworthy Voting in Distributed Networks: A Quorum-Based Approach with Hash Chains and Public Key Infrastructure”. Dr Wright produced this paper during his Master of Information Systems Security research at Charles Sturt University. The paper considers secure voting mechanisms in distributed systems through a combination of quorum-based voting, hash chains, and Public Key Infrastructure, which is analogous to core elements of Bitcoin.” 292.2. They are said to be “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" 293. 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 294. Dr Wright claimed that these were added to the BDO Drive back in 2007 and also made reference to him copying from a drive that was linked somehow, saying that he was creating a VMware image. Dr Wright accepted that ID_004734 cannot be authentic to 2007 because it was created with a 2020 version of Windows Rich Text Editor, but said this must have been due to the hack by Mr Ager-Hanssen or his associates: {Day5/95:9} and following. 295. Dr Wright sought to explain away the fact that there were precursor documents on InfoDef09.raw which showed references to texts from 2016 and 2017 and that those references had been replaced by question marks in the present document by saying that they were accounted for by his “horrible way of working” {Day9/96:24} and following. 296. Dr Wright sought to explain away the presence of a contents table in the version on InfoDef09.raw, which did not exist in this document, by saying that somebody (presumably Mr Ager-Hanssen or an associate) had created a contents table: {Day9/97:24} and following. 297. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 297.1. Dr Wright’s story about creating some form of VMware image does not make any sense and is a further example of obfuscation by Dr Wright. 297.2. There is no evidence to back up Dr Wright’s claimed technical effect of how these files interact when converted from one format to the other. 297.3. The precursor documents found on InfoDef09.raw included a table of contents and references to papers published post-2007. The versions Dr Wright manipulated had dropped the table of contents (because it would not make sense to have one in this sort of document) and had replaced what would be anachronistic references with question marks again. The story of this happening as a result of the supposed hack, as well as being without supporting evidence, presupposes an extraordinary effort at creating multiple fake versions of documents on the different raw images in a short space of time. 297.4. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004732 and ID_004734 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

The Case Against Craig Wright’s Voting Documents and Their Authenticity

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 14 of 42. 12. False LLM Proposal “Proposala.rtf” {ID_004697} {L2/54} 253. The document purports to be a version of Dr Wright’s LLM dissertation Proposal dating to 2007. There are versions of that proposal among his original Reliance Documents, some of which appear in COPA’s original Schedule of Forgeries. Dr Wright’s evidence is that his LLM dissertation Proposal featured ideas which contributed to his development of Bitcoin. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 254. 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]. 255. 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] 256. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted version of this document to the disclosed version shows that this document did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. It was entirely added to BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. 257. At the same time of adding this document (in RTF format), another version of Dr Wright’s supposed LLM Proposal was deleted (in MS Word format). The deleted version of the document remained recoverable from within BDOPC.raw [PM46 [101-105] H/278/35]. The deleted document was called “LLM_ProposalA.doc” and is hashidentical to a document previously analysed by Mr Madden {ID_003935}. It contains indicia of tampering, including the presence of a Grammarly timestamp dating to 18 August 2019, and was shared on Slack by Dr Wright on 18 August 2019. [PM43 [45-49] H/219/18]. 258. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 259. 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. 260. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. Paragraph 45 of the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 261. The version of this document which was deleted within BDOPC.raw {ID_003935} was addressed in the Madden Report and shown to be inauthentic. It is to be inferred that Dr Wright deleted that document from BDOPC.raw in response to the findings in the Madden Report. 262. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 262.1. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is “an early version / draft of Dr Wright’s LLM proposal on “Payment Providers and Trusted Third Parties as Defined in the Law of the Internet”. Dr Wright’s LLM Proposal uses language similar to language found in the Bitcoin White Paper, for example the phrase: “What is needed is an electronic payment system based on some form of cryptographic proof that allows two willing parties to transact electronically directly with each other without the need of a trusted third party or Internet intermediary”, which appears in the Introduction section of the Bitcoin White Paper.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/2)]. 262.2. It is said to be one of Dr Wright’s “Versions of Dr Wright’s LLM Proposal” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/2]. 263. 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. 264. 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. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 265. Dr Wright attempted to explain the Grammarly tags found in this version of his LLM Proposal by saying that what Mr Madden was looking at was a copy that was on another machine (and presumably then copied onto the BDO Drive by Mr Ager-Hanssen): {Day5/78:20} and following. 266. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 266.1. 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. 266.2. There is no evidence that any of the various versions of Dr Wright’s LLM dissertation proposal were actually used as part of his LLM. The actual LLM dissertation does not include the part of the LLM proposal on which Dr Wright relies as containing language and concepts similar to those of the Bitcoin White Paper. 266.3. Dr Wright accepts these documents have been tampered with but blames Mr Ager-Hanssen. As set out above, that story lacks any credibility. 266.4. This document was created with a version of Windows from 2020: Madden3 at {G/5/36}. 266.5. There was a similar deleted version with a Grammarly timestamp from 2019: Madden4 {G/6/34}. 266.6. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004697 was manipulated: {Q/6/5}. (d) Conclusion 267. I found the agreed expert evidence to be convincing. Accordingly, I was and am entirely satisfied that ID_0004697 was forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 14 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 14 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 12. False LLM Proposal “Proposala.rtf” {ID_004697} {L2/54} 253. The document purports to be a version of Dr Wright’s LLM dissertation Proposal dating to 2007. There are versions of that proposal among his original Reliance Documents, some of which appear in COPA’s original Schedule of Forgeries. Dr Wright’s evidence is that his LLM dissertation Proposal featured ideas which contributed to his development of Bitcoin. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 254. 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]. 255. 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] 256. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted version of this document to the disclosed version shows that this document did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. It was entirely added to BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. 257. At the same time of adding this document (in RTF format), another version of Dr Wright’s supposed LLM Proposal was deleted (in MS Word format). The deleted version of the document remained recoverable from within BDOPC.raw [PM46 [101-105] H/278/35]. The deleted document was called “LLM_ProposalA.doc” and is hashidentical to a document previously analysed by Mr Madden {ID_003935}. It contains indicia of tampering, including the presence of a Grammarly timestamp dating to 18 August 2019, and was shared on Slack by Dr Wright on 18 August 2019. [PM43 [45-49] H/219/18]. 258. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 259. 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. 260. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. Paragraph 45 of the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 261. The version of this document which was deleted within BDOPC.raw {ID_003935} was addressed in the Madden Report and shown to be inauthentic. It is to be inferred that Dr Wright deleted that document from BDOPC.raw in response to the findings in the Madden Report. 262. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 262.1. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is “an early version / draft of Dr Wright’s LLM proposal on “Payment Providers and Trusted Third Parties as Defined in the Law of the Internet”. Dr Wright’s LLM Proposal uses language similar to language found in the Bitcoin White Paper, for example the phrase: “What is needed is an electronic payment system based on some form of cryptographic proof that allows two willing parties to transact electronically directly with each other without the need of a trusted third party or Internet intermediary”, which appears in the Introduction section of the Bitcoin White Paper.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/2)]. 262.2. It is said to be one of Dr Wright’s “Versions of Dr Wright’s LLM Proposal” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/2]. 263. 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. 264. 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. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 265. Dr Wright attempted to explain the Grammarly tags found in this version of his LLM Proposal by saying that what Mr Madden was looking at was a copy that was on another machine (and presumably then copied onto the BDO Drive by Mr Ager-Hanssen): {Day5/78:20} and following. 266. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 266.1. 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. 266.2. There is no evidence that any of the various versions of Dr Wright’s LLM dissertation proposal were actually used as part of his LLM. The actual LLM dissertation does not include the part of the LLM proposal on which Dr Wright relies as containing language and concepts similar to those of the Bitcoin White Paper. 266.3. Dr Wright accepts these documents have been tampered with but blames Mr Ager-Hanssen. As set out above, that story lacks any credibility. 266.4. This document was created with a version of Windows from 2020: Madden3 at {G/5/36}. 266.5. There was a similar deleted version with a Grammarly timestamp from 2019: Madden4 {G/6/34}. 266.6. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004697 was manipulated: {Q/6/5}. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 267. I found the agreed expert evidence to be convincing. Accordingly, I was and am entirely satisfied that ID_0004697 was forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

How Forensic Experts Exposed Dr. Wright’s Alleged Document Forgery

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

Craig Wright's LaTeX Documents Deemed Forgery in Bitcoin White Paper Claim

Let's build a customer support chatbot using RAG and your company's documentation in OpenWebUI

আসুন OpenWebUI-তে RAG এবং আপনার কোম্পানির ডকুমেন্টেশন ব্যবহার করে একটি গ্রাহক সহায়তা চ্যাটবট তৈরি করি

Lassen Sie uns einen Kundensupport-Chatbot mit RAG und der Dokumentation Ihres Unternehmens in OpenWebUI erstellen

Creemos un chatbot de atención al cliente utilizando RAG y la documentación de su empresa en OpenWebUI

Créons un chatbot de support client en utilisant RAG et la documentation de votre entreprise dans OpenWebUI

आइए RAG और OpenWebUI में आपकी कंपनी के दस्तावेज़ों का उपयोग करके एक ग्राहक सहायता चैटबॉट बनाएं

RAGとOpenWebUIの会社のドキュメントを使用して、カスタマーサポートチャットボットを構築しましょう。

OpenWebUI에서 RAG와 회사 문서를 사용하여 고객 지원 챗봇을 구축해 보겠습니다.

Vamos construir um chatbot de suporte ao cliente usando RAG e a documentação da sua empresa em OpenWebUI

Давайте создадим чат-бота поддержки клиентов, используя RAG и документацию вашей компании в OpenWebUI.

RAG'ı ve şirketinizin OpenWebUI'daki belgelerini kullanarak bir müşteri destek sohbet robotu oluşturalım

Hãy xây dựng một chatbot hỗ trợ khách hàng bằng RAG và tài liệu của công ty bạn trong OpenWebUI

让我们使用 RAG 和您公司在 OpenWebUI 中的文档构建一个客户支持聊天机器人

The user who reads the doc Writing good documentation for any piece of software is not an easy task. There are many things you should keep in mind when doing your everyday work. All of them, and your skill and effort as well, shape your text into a highly usable piece of documentation. Let’s discuss the first thing to consider when starting your task: The User. Also well-known as “the Client”, the User is a human being, who represents the target group. The target group will use the documentation in their everyday work to find out how to use the piece of software to fulfill their professional needs. The documentation should look like helpful advice provided by an experienced friendly professional – this is the popular requirement from corporate style guides. To address it, you have to completely understand who reads the documentation and why. To achieve that understanding, find answers to basic questions (product and engineering teams may help you with this). Let’s go through these questions. What is the software and how is it used? This information shows you: The set of tasks the User might want to do.


The exact amount of information they need to use the software. Also, as you learn the software, you will find the problems, the complex parts and other sources of trouble for the client which can be fixed or covered in the doc. Remember, nobody reads the doc as a book. All articles and instructions are mainly used to find how to achieve the result they need. How skilled is the user? This is one of the most important questions. Undoubtedly, each user in the target group has slightly different skill levels. You should communicate with the user at their level of understanding, as this allows you to give the details and drastically reduce the amount of unused text (which is skipped by the user who wouldn’t read the information they already know). The mistakes here: Aiming the text at a less experienced user. In this case, the real user has to skip a lot of information just to find out that the information they were searching for is missing as it was too complicated.


Making the text too complicated for the User. In this case, the User has to learn a lot more than they need to perform the task. The text is rich in unnecessary details. These mistakes will result in Users asking technical support for help instead of quickly finding the required information on their own. What is their profession? This information will help you to: Tune the text to make the document comfortable for the user.


Limit the excessive definitions and descriptions of the basic terms. Remember, the documentation should look like helpful advice provided by an experienced friendly professional. This means the technical writer should completely understand the field of professional knowledge where the software (and the User) belongs. Many abbreviations, terms, and concepts are well-known for professionals with similar backgrounds. Use the existing basis to build communication with your reader. Slang: yes or no? Ideally, Users do not need to tune their knowledge to your documentation – the documentation tunes to the Users. Sometimes, the professional slang may be the best way to achieve this. Note: most style guides forbid using slang words. This is a great idea in general, but sometimes, especially if you write the text describing a really specific feature or if you are aiming to describe something for a very specific audience (for example, cybersecurity specialists or electronic engineers) it is much easier to use a well-known slang word instead of creating a new word that nobody knows. Be mindful when wiping out all slang words according to the requirements of the style guide. What is their Role? Sometimes Users with the same background use the software with different roles and access levels. It is very useful to figure out: What roles/access levels exist in the system?


How do these roles/access levels affect the work patterns of the User? The role (or access level) determines the set of functions available to the user. Actually, this is a really important part of describing your User: if the software has some role-based access, this means that certain functions are available only to certain Users. This will directly affect the volume of your documentation, its structure and also the language and focus for each role. Make sure you investigate the roles/access levels when creating a new piece of text, as ignoring it may even violate security policies. Summary Now, you have a portrait of somebody who will read your documentation. This information lets you to precisely address all user questions and needs in your documentation and make it highly usable. To sum up: Know the software.
Know your reader.
Be mindful when using style guides and other limitations.
Get familiar with the roles and access permissions available for the user. The user who reads the doc Writing good documentation for any piece of software is not an easy task. There are many things you should keep in mind when doing your everyday work. All of them, and your skill and effort as well, shape your text into a highly usable piece of documentation. Let’s discuss the first thing to consider when starting your task: The User. Also well-known as “the Client”, the User is a human being, who represents the target group. The target group will use the documentation in their everyday work to find out how to use the piece of software to fulfill their professional needs. The documentation should look like helpful advice provided by an experienced friendly professional – this is the popular requirement from corporate style guides. To address it, you have to completely understand who reads the documentation and why. To achieve that understanding, find answers to basic questions (product and engineering teams may help you with this). Let’s go through these questions. What is the software and how is it used? This information shows you: This information shows you: The set of tasks the User might want to do. The exact amount of information they need to use the software. The set of tasks the User might want to do. The set of tasks the User might want to do. The exact amount of information they need to use the software. The exact amount of information they need to use the software. Also, as you learn the software, you will find the problems, the complex parts and other sources of trouble for the client which can be fixed or covered in the doc. Remember, nobody reads the doc as a book. All articles and instructions are mainly used to find how to achieve the result they need. How skilled is the user? This is one of the most important questions. Undoubtedly, each user in the target group has slightly different skill levels. You should communicate with the user at their level of understanding, as this allows you to give the details and drastically reduce the amount of unused text (which is skipped by the user who wouldn’t read the information they already know). The mistakes here: Aiming the text at a less experienced user. In this case, the real user has to skip a lot of information just to find out that the information they were searching for is missing as it was too complicated. Making the text too complicated for the User. In this case, the User has to learn a lot more than they need to perform the task. The text is rich in unnecessary details. Aiming the text at a less experienced user. In this case, the real user has to skip a lot of information just to find out that the information they were searching for is missing as it was too complicated. Aiming the text at a less experienced user. In this case, the real user has to skip a lot of information just to find out that the information they were searching for is missing as it was too complicated. Making the text too complicated for the User. In this case, the User has to learn a lot more than they need to perform the task. The text is rich in unnecessary details. Making the text too complicated for the User. In this case, the User has to learn a lot more than they need to perform the task. The text is rich in unnecessary details. These mistakes will result in Users asking technical support for help instead of quickly finding the required information on their own. What is their profession? This information will help you to: Tune the text to make the document comfortable for the user. Limit the excessive definitions and descriptions of the basic terms. Tune the text to make the document comfortable for the user. Tune the text to make the document comfortable for the user. Limit the excessive definitions and descriptions of the basic terms. Limit the excessive definitions and descriptions of the basic terms. Remember, the documentation should look like helpful advice provided by an experienced friendly professional. This means the technical writer should completely understand the field of professional knowledge where the software (and the User) belongs. Many abbreviations, terms, and concepts are well-known for professionals with similar backgrounds. Use the existing basis to build communication with your reader. Slang: yes or no? Ideally, Users do not need to tune their knowledge to your documentation – the documentation tunes to the Users. Sometimes, the professional slang may be the best way to achieve this. Note: most style guides forbid using slang words. This is a great idea in general, but sometimes, especially if you write the text describing a really specific feature or if you are aiming to describe something for a very specific audience (for example, cybersecurity specialists or electronic engineers) it is much easier to use a well-known slang word instead of creating a new word that nobody knows. Be mindful when wiping out all slang words according to the requirements of the style guide. Note: most style guides forbid using slang words. This is a great idea in general, but sometimes, especially if you write the text describing a really specific feature or if you are aiming to describe something for a very specific audience (for example, cybersecurity specialists or electronic engineers) it is much easier to use a well-known slang word instead of creating a new word that nobody knows. Be mindful when wiping out all slang words according to the requirements of the style guide. Note: What is their Role? Sometimes Users with the same background use the software with different roles and access levels. It is very useful to figure out: What roles/access levels exist in the system? How do these roles/access levels affect the work patterns of the User? What roles/access levels exist in the system? What roles/access levels exist in the system? How do these roles/access levels affect the work patterns of the User? How do these roles/access levels affect the work patterns of the User? The role (or access level) determines the set of functions available to the user. Actually, this is a really important part of describing your User: if the software has some role-based access, this means that certain functions are available only to certain Users. This will directly affect the volume of your documentation, its structure and also the language and focus for each role. Make sure you investigate the roles/access levels when creating a new piece of text, as ignoring it may even violate security policies. Summary Now, you have a portrait of somebody who will read your documentation. This information lets you to precisely address all user questions and needs in your documentation and make it highly usable. To sum up: Know the software. Know your reader. Be mindful when using style guides and other limitations. Get familiar with the roles and access permissions available for the user. Know the software. Know your reader. Be mindful when using style guides and other limitations. Get familiar with the roles and access permissions available for the user.

Stories, News & Mentions about DOCUMENTLY

Documently’s Stories on HackerNoon