Furtherium

furtherium

Introduction: Ever since the buzz about GenAI and ChatGPT, I have been trying to understand the space and leveraging it into my day-to-day activities as a Data Engineer. No doubt it has been useful for debugging with respective programming and documentation. Personally, it played a significant role in helping me plan my Dubai itinerary. It even contributed to naming my friend’s daughter. However, it works pretty well if you give appropriate and precise requirements. There is a lot of anxiety among people that AI is going to take our jobs as they feel almost everything will be automated through AI. Is LLM as good as everyone claims? In this article, we will look into the specifics of Gen AI’s role in data engineering and see where it flourishes, where it requires enhancement, and where human expertise remains irreplaceable. Areas of Strength: Basic Data Querying: 100% the human necessity is going to get disrupted, but the severity based on the complexity is high. Even the SQL practitioners won’t feel much difference here, and self-serve analytics will catch fire in this area which is something phenomenal! Again, to quote positively, data engineers won’t need to guide the stakeholders nearly as much! Troubleshooting Pipeline Failures: LLMs coupled with agents will slash on-call load massively. LLMs processing stack traces/quality failures can recommend the built-in remedies and nudge the ball down the field to address the problem, presumably even over Slack. And that is a fantastic percentage of data engineering hours saved! To be clear, some hard failures require manual troubleshooting. Anomaly Detection: Regardless of the structure, format, source, complexity, timeliness, or even natural play of data, large language models can identify anomalies. LLMs are well-suited to anomaly identification because they can work across a variety of data sources, identify subtle patterns, and distinguish when data isn’t behaving as expected. This will help data engineers to identify and fix data quality problems in advance. Areas for Enhancement: Data Cleansing: Our results suggest that Language Models (LLMs) are highly effective in data cleansing due to their high performance in unstructured data management and semantic error identification and correction, as well as high scalability. Furthermore, our review of the current state-of-the-art suggests that even more substantial improvements are possible, including fine-tuning of LLMs to specific domains or even organization data. In addition, various interactive mechanisms as well as coupling with data quality frameworks can significantly increase the efficiency of LLMs. Overall, LLMs allow for organizing and improving the whole process of data cleansing, helping to obtain high-quality datasets, and, consequently, valuable insights. Visualization and Report Generation: Language Models (LLMs) excel in visualization and documentation tasks by automating the creation of reports, summarizing data insights, and generating narrative-driven reports. Enhancements needed include improving document organization and categorization, data-driven storytelling capabilities integrating with version control systems and visualization tools for seamless output generation, and enhancing interpretability features to ensure clarity and coherence in reports. Writing Pipeline Code in SQL, Spark, or Flink LLM can be a helpful starting point, and for our work, it is a good boilerplate. Still, the generated material is hard to debug — or often not, worth the trouble. Prompt-driven content is still far from being able to turn out a nice, optimized, and absolutely accurate data pipeline. Optimization By providing suggestions on efficient query structures and detecting problems that slow performance, LLMs are especially powerful when it comes to SQL optimization. They can even make recommendations for optimizations on the basis of historical query data. Things for improvement include integrating database-specific optimization techniques into the training of LLM, bridging with query execution plans in order to give context-oriented advice and feedback mechanisms so that one can modify strategies for optimization according to what users prefer as well as performance metrics. Physical Data Model As soon as the logical model is finalized, LLM will be efficient in moving and upgrading this logical (or conceptual) data model into the targeted architecture. The problem that LLM encounters with all the examples is that it’s hard for most people to understand the pipeline, table, and its relationship. Areas Where Human Expertise Remains Irreplaceable: Logical Data Model Data modeling is a very soft skills-focused task. You have to communicate with different stakeholders to understand the business context in detail. Understanding what data is needed, the relationship between entities, and considering different scenarios are human-oriented tasks that LLMs must continue to struggle with. Building Pipeline and Framework Once they reach a certain level of complexity, LLMs begin to give up. Imagine if someone asked ChatGPT, “Can you provide me the source code of Android’s next version?” While LLMs can help with routine data engineering tasks, they do not have the insight or inventiveness unique to humans that allows for new solutions to complex challenges, unlocking creativity in technical terms. Domain Expertise and Intuition: Human data engineers bring a unique blend of domain expertise and intuition to their work that often surpasses what conventional software isn’t able to achieve through automation. This intuition allows them to find subtle patterns in data that no fully rigorous automated system can. Based on their knowledge of this field and their experiences in it, they can predict future trends. They can also make decisions in light of a broader context, including corporate or government needs, ethical considerations, and potential future scenarios. This holistic approach to data engineering surpasses what LLMs have achieved. Although LLMs have great power, they are typically restricted to the patterns and relationships they have been trained to recognize. Conclusion: On the whole, Gen AI can certainly automate trivial procedures such as looking for information, launching programs that don’t work properly, repeatedly correcting faults, and anomaly detection. My gut tells me that Gen AI will win out and excel at tasks such as Data Cleansing, Optimization, and Writing Pipelines — once the team understands gaps and missing patterns. But it can not learn purely human soft skills that are important for building logical data models or a framework. I believe that these skills, which cannot be automated, are also essential for stakeholders to ask for innovation in the first place. After all, no one ever asked Steve Jobs if they needed anything like an iPhone; he just thought up what would become its invention. References: https://barrmoses.medium.com/will-genai-replace-data-engineers-no-and-heres-why-708b0a27da6b ​​__https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/navigating-data-governance-challenges-era-large-fnq5e__ https://www.dataversity.net/navigating-the-risks-of-llm-ai-tools-for-data-governance/ https://www.skyflow.com/post/why-ai-governance-requires-data-governance https://coreykeyser.medium.com/you-cant-govern-ai-without-governing-data-27bb88d8f9ea https://www.ankursnewsletter.com/p/gpt-4-gpt-3-and-gpt-35-turbo-a-review https://towardsdatascience.com/from-chaos-to-clarity-streamlining-data-cleansing-using-large-language-models-a539fa0b2d90 https://medium.com/@wangshally11/data-cleaning-warm-up-before-training-large-language-models-74ed1edceead Introduction: Ever since the buzz about GenAI and ChatGPT, I have been trying to understand the space and leveraging it into my day-to-day activities as a Data Engineer. No doubt it has been useful for debugging with respective programming and documentation. Personally, it played a significant role in helping me plan my Dubai itinerary. It even contributed to naming my friend’s daughter. However, it works pretty well if you give appropriate and precise requirements. There is a lot of anxiety among people that AI is going to take our jobs as they feel almost everything will be automated through AI. Is LLM as good as everyone claims? In this article, we will look into the specifics of Gen AI’s role in data engineering and see where it flourishes, where it requires enhancement, and where human expertise remains irreplaceable. Areas of Strength: Basic Data Querying: 100% the human necessity is going to get disrupted, but the severity based on the complexity is high. Even the SQL practitioners won’t feel much difference here, and self-serve analytics will catch fire in this area which is something phenomenal! Again, to quote positively, data engineers won’t need to guide the stakeholders nearly as much! Troubleshooting Pipeline Failures: LLMs coupled with agents will slash on-call load massively. LLMs processing stack traces/quality failures can recommend the built-in remedies and nudge the ball down the field to address the problem, presumably even over Slack. And that is a fantastic percentage of data engineering hours saved! To be clear, some hard failures require manual troubleshooting. Anomaly Detection: Regardless of the structure, format, source, complexity, timeliness, or even natural play of data, large language models can identify anomalies. LLMs are well-suited to anomaly identification because they can work across a variety of data sources, identify subtle patterns, and distinguish when data isn’t behaving as expected. This will help data engineers to identify and fix data quality problems in advance. Areas for Enhancement: Data Cleansing: Our results suggest that Language Models (LLMs) are highly effective in data cleansing due to their high performance in unstructured data management and semantic error identification and correction, as well as high scalability. Furthermore, our review of the current state-of-the-art suggests that even more substantial improvements are possible, including fine-tuning of LLMs to specific domains or even organization data. In addition, various interactive mechanisms as well as coupling with data quality frameworks can significantly increase the efficiency of LLMs. Overall, LLMs allow for organizing and improving the whole process of data cleansing, helping to obtain high-quality datasets, and, consequently, valuable insights. Visualization and Report Generation: Language Models (LLMs) excel in visualization and documentation tasks by automating the creation of reports, summarizing data insights, and generating narrative-driven reports. Enhancements needed include improving document organization and categorization, data-driven storytelling capabilities integrating with version control systems and visualization tools for seamless output generation, and enhancing interpretability features to ensure clarity and coherence in reports. Writing Pipeline Code in SQL, Spark, or Flink LLM can be a helpful starting point, and for our work, it is a good boilerplate. Still, the generated material is hard to debug — or often not, worth the trouble. Prompt-driven content is still far from being able to turn out a nice, optimized, and absolutely accurate data pipeline. Optimization By providing suggestions on efficient query structures and detecting problems that slow performance, LLMs are especially powerful when it comes to SQL optimization. They can even make recommendations for optimizations on the basis of historical query data. Things for improvement include integrating database-specific optimization techniques into the training of LLM, bridging with query execution plans in order to give context-oriented advice and feedback mechanisms so that one can modify strategies for optimization according to what users prefer as well as performance metrics. Physical Data Model As soon as the logical model is finalized, LLM will be efficient in moving and upgrading this logical (or conceptual) data model into the targeted architecture. The problem that LLM encounters with all the examples is that it’s hard for most people to understand the pipeline, table, and its relationship. Areas Where Human Expertise Remains Irreplaceable: Logical Data Model Data modeling is a very soft skills-focused task. You have to communicate with different stakeholders to understand the business context in detail. Understanding what data is needed, the relationship between entities, and considering different scenarios are human-oriented tasks that LLMs must continue to struggle with. Building Pipeline and Framework Once they reach a certain level of complexity, LLMs begin to give up. Imagine if someone asked ChatGPT, “Can you provide me the source code of Android’s next version?” While LLMs can help with routine data engineering tasks, they do not have the insight or inventiveness unique to humans that allows for new solutions to complex challenges, unlocking creativity in technical terms. Domain Expertise and Intuition: Human data engineers bring a unique blend of domain expertise and intuition to their work that often surpasses what conventional software isn’t able to achieve through automation. This intuition allows them to find subtle patterns in data that no fully rigorous automated system can. Based on their knowledge of this field and their experiences in it, they can predict future trends. They can also make decisions in light of a broader context, including corporate or government needs, ethical considerations, and potential future scenarios. This holistic approach to data engineering surpasses what LLMs have achieved. Although LLMs have great power, they are typically restricted to the patterns and relationships they have been trained to recognize. Conclusion: On the whole, Gen AI can certainly automate trivial procedures such as looking for information, launching programs that don’t work properly, repeatedly correcting faults, and anomaly detection. My gut tells me that Gen AI will win out and excel at tasks such as Data Cleansing, Optimization, and Writing Pipelines — once the team understands gaps and missing patterns. But it can not learn purely human soft skills that are important for building logical data models or a framework. I believe that these skills, which cannot be automated, are also essential for stakeholders to ask for innovation in the first place. After all, no one ever asked Steve Jobs if they needed anything like an iPhone; he just thought up what would become its invention. References: https://barrmoses.medium.com/will-genai-replace-data-engineers-no-and-heres-why-708b0a27da6b https://barrmoses.medium.com/will-genai-replace-data-engineers-no-and-heres-why-708b0a27da6b https://barrmoses.medium.com/will-genai-replace-data-engineers-no-and-heres-why-708b0a27da6b ​​__ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/navigating-data-governance-challenges-era-large-fnq5e __ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/navigating-data-governance-challenges-era-large-fnq5e https://www.dataversity.net/navigating-the-risks-of-llm-ai-tools-for-data-governance/ https://www.dataversity.net/navigating-the-risks-of-llm-ai-tools-for-data-governance/ https://www.dataversity.net/navigating-the-risks-of-llm-ai-tools-for-data-governance/ https://www.skyflow.com/post/why-ai-governance-requires-data-governance https://www.skyflow.com/post/why-ai-governance-requires-data-governance https://www.skyflow.com/post/why-ai-governance-requires-data-governance https://coreykeyser.medium.com/you-cant-govern-ai-without-governing-data-27bb88d8f9ea https://coreykeyser.medium.com/you-cant-govern-ai-without-governing-data-27bb88d8f9ea https://coreykeyser.medium.com/you-cant-govern-ai-without-governing-data-27bb88d8f9ea https://www.ankursnewsletter.com/p/gpt-4-gpt-3-and-gpt-35-turbo-a-review https://www.ankursnewsletter.com/p/gpt-4-gpt-3-and-gpt-35-turbo-a-review https://www.ankursnewsletter.com/p/gpt-4-gpt-3-and-gpt-35-turbo-a-review https://towardsdatascience.com/from-chaos-to-clarity-streamlining-data-cleansing-using-large-language-models-a539fa0b2d90 https://towardsdatascience.com/from-chaos-to-clarity-streamlining-data-cleansing-using-large-language-models-a539fa0b2d90 https://towardsdatascience.com/from-chaos-to-clarity-streamlining-data-cleansing-using-large-language-models-a539fa0b2d90 https://medium.com/@wangshally11/data-cleaning-warm-up-before-training-large-language-models-74ed1edceead https://medium.com/@wangshally11/data-cleaning-warm-up-before-training-large-language-models-74ed1edceead https://medium.com/@wangshally11/data-cleaning-warm-up-before-training-large-language-models-74ed1edceead

LLMs: An Assessment From a Data Engineer

Overview Mastering the Art of Publication: A comprehensive guide outlining key criteria for evaluating publications, common recommendations for successful content creation, essential publication structure guidelines, and must-have chapters. Learn how to optimize your publications for engagement and readability while ensuring effective organization and categorization through tags. Criteria for Evaluating Publications Understanding the effectiveness of published works is paramount in today's digital landscape. Having posted numerous publications across seven different sites, I've identified several key criteria for determining the success and interest level of each publication: Number of Views: The total number of times the publication has been viewed is a primary indicator of its reach and impact.
Comments: Engaging comments indicate that the publication has sparked discussion and resonated with the audience.
Likes and Reposts: The number of likes and reposts reflects the level of appreciation and the desire to share the publication with others.
Savings into Bookmarks: When readers save the publication into their bookmarks, it suggests that they find the content valuable and wish to revisit it in the future. By assessing these metrics, I can gauge the effectiveness of each publication and tailor future content to better meet the interests and preferences of the audience. Common Recommendations Crafting compelling and impactful content requires adherence to certain guiding principles. When publishing, it's crucial to ensure that the content reads like a story rather than a mere collection of facts. It's immensely valuable to draw from personal experiences rather than relying solely on information gathered from books and online sources, avoiding mere reposts. Our content should reflect our own opinions, which might sometimes be provocative to stimulate discussion and even elicit strong reactions. For example, you can describe any pain points for yourself and for society. Additionally, the content should encourage readers to form their own opinions and engage in meaningful dialogue. Furthermore, it's important to be responsive to comments by addressing any questions or concerns raised. This interaction helps foster a sense of community and encourages further engagement with the content. Publication Structure A well-structured publication enhances readability and comprehension. So, when creating content, it is crucial to prioritize structure, especially for larger texts. The following guidelines should be adhered to: Paragraphs and Indentation: Ensure that paragraphs are used to maintain clear segmentation of ideas. Implement proper indentation to enhance readability.
Headings and Subheadings: Utilize headings and subheadings to organize content hierarchically. Limit heading levels to three for simplicity and clarity.
Lists: Integrate bulleted or numbered lists to present information concisely.
Chapter Order: Recognize the significance of the order of chapters, following the conventions of scientific documents. By adhering to these guidelines, your content will not only be well-structured but also enhance the overall readability and comprehension of the larger text. Must-Have Chapters Certain chapters serve as linchpins in the architecture of comprehensive documents. In any comprehensive document, the following chapters are essential: Headline: This chapter serves as the introduction, providing a concise and compelling overview of the document's main theme or purpose.
Overview: The overview chapter expands on the headline, offering a more detailed insight into the document's content, objectives, and key points.
Tags: In this chapter, relevant tags are included to categorize and label the document, aiding in searchability and organization.
Table of Contents: The table of contents chapter provides a structured outline of the document, listing its sections and subsections, guiding readers through the content. Ensuring the inclusion of these must-have chapters will contribute to the clarity, accessibility, and overall effectiveness of the document. Optional Chapters While some chapters are essential, others offer additional value and flexibility in content creation. I would like to note that the Alternative Headline, Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations, Introduction, and References chapters are optional. Generally, there is no need for a glossary. If there are terms that the reader may not know, please explain them where and when they are mentioned. "Headline" chapter The headline serves as the gateway to the publication, encapsulating its essence in a concise and compelling manner. I use ChatGPT to assist me in generating headlines. Therefore, I copy the entire content into ChatGPT and ask it to generate a headline. Please note that sometimes, it may require a few corrections because it might extract a headline based only on a part of the content and not the entire text. "Table of Contents" Chapter The table of contents provides readers with a structured overview of the publication's contents, facilitating navigation and comprehension. "Overview" Chapter The overview chapter typically offers a brief summary or introduction to the main topics covered in the document. It serves as a way to orient the reader and provide context before delving into more detailed information. Alternatively, this chapter is often referred to as TL;DR - too long; didn't read. Similar to the previous chapter, I use ChatGPT to help me generate the overview. Therefore, I copy the entire content into ChatGPT and ask it to generate an Overview. "Tags" Chapter Tags for text documents are keywords or labels assigned to the document to categorize or describe its content. Tags play a crucial role in categorizing and organizing content, enhancing searchability and discoverability. These tags aid in organizing and classifying documents, making them easier to search, filter, and retrieve later. I use these tags to include on the platform where I am publishing. Once more, I utilize ChatGPT to generate the tags. "Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations" Chapter Clarifying terminology is essential for enhancing reader comprehension and clarity. This chapter lists Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations in the form of a table. It consists of 3 columns: Number: Indicates the row number.
Abbreviation or Acronym: The name of the Abbreviation or Acronym.
Definition: Explains the Abbreviation or Acronym. "References" Chapter Citing sources and references adds credibility and authority to the publication. It is recommended that links be included at the point of mention. Additionally, a separate chapter for references in the form of a table is desired. The table consists of 6 columns: Number: Indicates the row number.
Name: The name of the reference.
Source: The name of the resource where it is published.
Release Date: The date of release.
Author: The content creator.
Description: An additional field for details. Overview Mastering the Art of Publication: A comprehensive guide outlining key criteria for evaluating publications, common recommendations for successful content creation, essential publication structure guidelines, and must-have chapters. Learn how to optimize your publications for engagement and readability while ensuring effective organization and categorization through tags. Criteria for Evaluating Publications Understanding the effectiveness of published works is paramount in today's digital landscape. Having posted numerous publications across seven different sites, I've identified several key criteria for determining the success and interest level of each publication: Number of Views: The total number of times the publication has been viewed is a primary indicator of its reach and impact. Comments: Engaging comments indicate that the publication has sparked discussion and resonated with the audience. Likes and Reposts: The number of likes and reposts reflects the level of appreciation and the desire to share the publication with others. Savings into Bookmarks: When readers save the publication into their bookmarks, it suggests that they find the content valuable and wish to revisit it in the future. Number of Views : The total number of times the publication has been viewed is a primary indicator of its reach and impact. Number of Views Comments : Engaging comments indicate that the publication has sparked discussion and resonated with the audience. Comments Likes and Reposts : The number of likes and reposts reflects the level of appreciation and the desire to share the publication with others. Likes and Reposts Savings into Bookmarks : When readers save the publication into their bookmarks, it suggests that they find the content valuable and wish to revisit it in the future. Savings into Bookmarks By assessing these metrics, I can gauge the effectiveness of each publication and tailor future content to better meet the interests and preferences of the audience. Common Recommendations Crafting compelling and impactful content requires adherence to certain guiding principles. When publishing, it's crucial to ensure that the content reads like a story rather than a mere collection of facts. It's immensely valuable to draw from personal experiences rather than relying solely on information gathered from books and online sources, avoiding mere reposts. Our content should reflect our own opinions, which might sometimes be provocative to stimulate discussion and even elicit strong reactions. For example, you can describe any pain points for yourself and for society. Additionally, the content should encourage readers to form their own opinions and engage in meaningful dialogue. Furthermore, it's important to be responsive to comments by addressing any questions or concerns raised. This interaction helps foster a sense of community and encourages further engagement with the content. Publication Structure A well-structured publication enhances readability and comprehension. So, when creating content, it is crucial to prioritize structure, especially for larger texts. The following guidelines should be adhered to: Paragraphs and Indentation: Ensure that paragraphs are used to maintain clear segmentation of ideas. Implement proper indentation to enhance readability. Headings and Subheadings: Utilize headings and subheadings to organize content hierarchically. Limit heading levels to three for simplicity and clarity. Lists: Integrate bulleted or numbered lists to present information concisely. Chapter Order: Recognize the significance of the order of chapters, following the conventions of scientific documents. Paragraphs and Indentation: Ensure that paragraphs are used to maintain clear segmentation of ideas. Implement proper indentation to enhance readability. Headings and Subheadings: Utilize headings and subheadings to organize content hierarchically. Limit heading levels to three for simplicity and clarity. Lists: Integrate bulleted or numbered lists to present information concisely. Chapter Order: Recognize the significance of the order of chapters, following the conventions of scientific documents. By adhering to these guidelines, your content will not only be well-structured but also enhance the overall readability and comprehension of the larger text. Must-Have Chapters Certain chapters serve as linchpins in the architecture of comprehensive documents. In any comprehensive document, the following chapters are essential: Headline: This chapter serves as the introduction, providing a concise and compelling overview of the document's main theme or purpose. Overview: The overview chapter expands on the headline, offering a more detailed insight into the document's content, objectives, and key points. Tags: In this chapter, relevant tags are included to categorize and label the document, aiding in searchability and organization. Table of Contents: The table of contents chapter provides a structured outline of the document, listing its sections and subsections, guiding readers through the content. Headline: This chapter serves as the introduction, providing a concise and compelling overview of the document's main theme or purpose. Overview: The overview chapter expands on the headline, offering a more detailed insight into the document's content, objectives, and key points. Tags: In this chapter, relevant tags are included to categorize and label the document, aiding in searchability and organization. Table of Contents: The table of contents chapter provides a structured outline of the document, listing its sections and subsections, guiding readers through the content. Ensuring the inclusion of these must-have chapters will contribute to the clarity, accessibility, and overall effectiveness of the document. Optional Chapters While some chapters are essential, others offer additional value and flexibility in content creation. I would like to note that the Alternative Headline , Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations , Introduction, and References chapters are optional. Alternative Headline Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations Introduction, References Generally, there is no need for a glossary. If there are terms that the reader may not know, please explain them where and when they are mentioned. "Headline" chapter The headline serves as the gateway to the publication, encapsulating its essence in a concise and compelling manner. I use ChatGPT to assist me in generating headlines. Therefore, I copy the entire content into ChatGPT and ask it to generate a headline. Please note that sometimes, it may require a few corrections because it might extract a headline based only on a part of the content and not the entire text. ChatGPT ChatGPT "Table of Contents" Chapter The table of contents provides readers with a structured overview of the publication's contents, facilitating navigation and comprehension. "Overview" Chapter The overview chapter typically offers a brief summary or introduction to the main topics covered in the document. It serves as a way to orient the reader and provide context before delving into more detailed information. overview Alternatively, this chapter is often referred to as TL;DR - too long; didn't read . TL;DR too long; didn't read Similar to the previous chapter, I use ChatGPT to help me generate the overview. Therefore, I copy the entire content into ChatGPT and ask it to generate an Overview . ChatGPT ChatGPT Overview "Tags" Chapter Tags for text documents are keywords or labels assigned to the document to categorize or describe its content. Tags play a crucial role in categorizing and organizing content, enhancing searchability and discoverability. These tags aid in organizing and classifying documents, making them easier to search, filter, and retrieve later. Tags tags I use these tags to include on the platform where I am publishing. tags Once more, I utilize ChatGPT to generate the tags . ChatGPT tags "Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations" Chapter Clarifying terminology is essential for enhancing reader comprehension and clarity. This chapter lists Definitions , Acronyms , and Abbreviations in the form of a table. Definitions Acronyms Abbreviations It consists of 3 columns: Number: Indicates the row number. Abbreviation or Acronym: The name of the Abbreviation or Acronym. Definition: Explains the Abbreviation or Acronym. Number : Indicates the row number. Number Abbreviation or Acronym : The name of the Abbreviation or Acronym. Abbreviation or Acronym Definition : Explains the Abbreviation or Acronym. Definition "References" Chapter Citing sources and references adds credibility and authority to the publication. It is recommended that links be included at the point of mention. Additionally, a separate chapter for references in the form of a table is desired. The table consists of 6 columns: Number: Indicates the row number. Name: The name of the reference. Source: The name of the resource where it is published. Release Date: The date of release. Author: The content creator. Description: An additional field for details. Number : Indicates the row number. Number Name : The name of the reference. Name Source : The name of the resource where it is published. Source Release Date : The date of release. Release Date Author : The content creator. Author Description : An additional field for details. Description

What Content to Create and How to Publish It: Part 1

Each time I read about a crypto hack on the internet, I usually heave a sigh of disappointment. I always ask myself whether there will ever be an end to the alarming rate of cyber attacks on blockchain protocols. For every crypto hack that has occurred, it feels like the cryptocurrency industry has taken ten steps backward, undermining its progress and worsening the industry’s image problem. Apparently, crypto hacks happen not because there are no effective cyber security measures in place but because they are either not enough or they are currently outpaced. Developing a superior cybersecurity technology must be seen as a race to beat hackers to their own game, and further improvements are required to match their tactics for tactics, so much so that cybersecurity technologies must be ten steps ahead of cyber threats. In this article, I will be delving into the efficacy of smart contract audits, highlighting the significance of a routine audit and the convergence of various approaches that are tailored towards a safer blockchain ecosystem. What Are Smart Contracts? Smart contracts are pieces of self-executing computer programs on a blockchain. They are designed to function when a particular set of conditions are fulfilled (i.e., minting an NFT), and the ultimate purpose they serve is to cut off intermediaries. It is hard to imagine today's world of decentralized applications(DApps) without its functionalities. However, deploying it on a blockchain protocol comes with potential risks. In other words, they are vulnerable to cyber attacks such as DOS attacks, phishing, flash loan attacks, and rentrancy attacks. One of the earliest events that proved that blockchain technology is not the gold standard for cybersecurity involved a smart contract. Many people remember this event as the infamous DAO hack, which happened in 2016 after hackers exploited a flaw in the code and stole over $50 million. The most recent example of this type of exploit is the Normie memecoin hack, which took place on the 26th of May 2024. This exploit not only resulted in the loss of over $800,000  but also saw the market capitalization of the memecoin slump to $35,000 from $41 million in a matter of days. Why Do Smart Contract Hacks Occur? There are bad actors in every dark corner of the web. Smart contract hacks occur because hackers are able to identify and exploit the vulnerabilities of a smart contract. In most cases, they are written by humans, making them prone to errors that hackers usually exploit. In another instance, hackers do this by tricking unsuspecting users into interacting with a malicious smart contract in order to steal their funds. Combating Smart Contract Hacks Blockchain protocols continue to suffer heavy financial loss due to the recurring exploit. To address this menace, a regular smart contract audit is usually recommended by cyber security experts. While this security measure might offer a semblance of efficacy, obtaining an audit certificate has never turned out to be the most assuring safety measure. As a matter of fact, a one-off audit is never enough because experience has shown that it must be carried out from time to time. Furthermore, the DeFi landscape has witnessed significant advances in blockchain security with the emergence of AI, so much so that AI is increasingly becoming a viable tool in the detection of anomalies. Leveraging AI can further enhance the ability of professional auditors to carry out a thorough risk assessment because it raises the bar for audit technology and reduces the dependence on the traditional manual process. The Significance of  Smart Contract Audit Auditing smart contracts is the process of running checks on the code to discover potential security flaws. While it is not the ultimate measure, it has grown in importance over the years, especially with the rise of professional audit firms. Regularly checking for vulnerability is an industry-standard procedure justified by collective wisdom: prevention is better than cure. It is also a reminder that cyber threats are always lurking around the corner. Most importantly, there is a need for blockchain protocols to diversify their cybersecurity strategies so that a regular audit is combined with other evolving techniques, such as artificial intelligence(AI). Commenting on the importance of a regular smart contract auditing UBET Sports CEO Daniel Jiwoong. Im said: “Smart contract auditing is essential for platform like UBET Sports operating in the decentralized finance (DeFi) space. These audits identify and mitigate security vulnerabilities that could be exploited by malicious actors, safeguarding user assets and maintaining the platform's integrity. Regular audits also build trust and confidence among users, reassuring them that the platform has been rigorously tested and verified by independent experts.” “Recently, UBET Sports underwent three comprehensive smart contract audits, demonstrating its commitment to security and reliability. The first audit coincided with the launch of UBET Sports' decentralized exchange (DEX) for sports betting, establishing a secure foundation. Subsequent audits focused on enhancing the Automated Market Maker (AMM) to improve slippage, optimizing gas fees, improving push settlements, and structuring revenue-sharing mechanisms for liquidity provision, ”he added. Is a routine smart contract audit worth it? “Building an on-chain product presents challenges, such as the need for audits before each release, preventing continuous integration and deployment. Despite these challenges and the high costs associated with multiple audits, we prioritized security to protect its users. With two more smart contract updates planned this year, we continue to make steady progress in the SportiFi space, merging sports and DeFi” Daniel further said. Conclusion Billions of dollars have been lost over the years to crypto hacks perpetrated by bad actors. Smart contract vulnerability can give rise to a potential hack, which can, in turn, undermine a blockchain protocol and drain the funds of its users. Promoting a secure blockchain ecosystem has been at the heart of every cybersecurity measure, like smart contract audits that are designed to combat the incidence of cyber-attacks. A smart contract audit, which typically involves a detailed examination of a protocol’s codebase, has been recognized as one of the standard techniques for combating potential crypto hacks. It has increasingly become a significant practice in blockchain security with the emergence of professional audit firms and sophisticated tools. Each time I read about a crypto hack on the internet, I usually heave a sigh of disappointment. I always ask myself whether there will ever be an end to the alarming rate of cyber attacks on blockchain protocols. For every crypto hack that has occurred, it feels like the cryptocurrency industry has taken ten steps backward, undermining its progress and worsening the industry’s image problem. Apparently, crypto hacks happen not because there are no effective cyber security measures in place but because they are either not enough or they are currently outpaced. Developing a superior cybersecurity technology must be seen as a race to beat hackers to their own game, and further improvements are required to match their tactics for tactics, so much so that cybersecurity technologies must be ten steps ahead of cyber threats. In this article, I will be delving into the efficacy of smart contract audits, highlighting the significance of a routine audit and the convergence of various approaches that are tailored towards a safer blockchain ecosystem. What Are Smart Contracts? Smart contracts are pieces of self-executing computer programs on a blockchain. They are designed to function when a particular set of conditions are fulfilled (i.e., minting an NFT), and the ultimate purpose they serve is to cut off intermediaries. It is hard to imagine today's world of decentralized applications(DApps) without its functionalities. However, deploying it on a blockchain protocol comes with potential risks. In other words, they are vulnerable to cyber attacks such as DOS attacks, phishing, flash loan attacks, and rentrancy attacks. One of the earliest events that proved that blockchain technology is not the gold standard for cybersecurity involved a smart contract. Many people remember this event as the infamous DAO hack, which happened in 2016 after hackers exploited a flaw in the code and stole over $50 million. The most recent example of this type of exploit is the Normie memecoin hack, which took place on the 26th of May 2024. This exploit not only resulted in the loss of over $800,000  but also saw the market capitalization of the memecoin slump to $35,000 from $41 million in a matter of days. Why Do Smart Contract Hacks Occur? There are bad actors in every dark corner of the web. Smart contract hacks occur because hackers are able to identify and exploit the vulnerabilities of a smart contract. In most cases, they are written by humans, making them prone to errors that hackers usually exploit. In another instance, hackers do this by tricking unsuspecting users into interacting with a malicious smart contract in order to steal their funds. Combating Smart Contract Hacks Blockchain protocols continue to suffer heavy financial loss due to the recurring exploit. To address this menace, a regular smart contract audit is usually recommended by cyber security experts. While this security measure might offer a semblance of efficacy, obtaining an audit certificate has never turned out to be the most assuring safety measure. As a matter of fact, a one-off audit is never enough because experience has shown that it must be carried out from time to time. Furthermore, the DeFi landscape has witnessed significant advances in blockchain security with the emergence of AI, so much so that AI is increasingly becoming a viable tool in the detection of anomalies. Leveraging AI can further enhance the ability of professional auditors to carry out a thorough risk assessment because it raises the bar for audit technology and reduces the dependence on the traditional manual process. The Significance of  Smart Contract Audit Auditing smart contracts is the process of running checks on the code to discover potential security flaws. While it is not the ultimate measure, it has grown in importance over the years, especially with the rise of professional audit firms. Regularly checking for vulnerability is an industry-standard procedure justified by collective wisdom: prevention is better than cure. It is also a reminder that cyber threats are always lurking around the corner. Most importantly, there is a need for blockchain protocols to diversify their cybersecurity strategies so that a regular audit is combined with other evolving techniques, such as artificial intelligence(AI). Commenting on the importance of a regular smart contract auditing UBET Sports CEO Daniel Jiwoong. Im said: “Smart contract auditing is essential for platform like UBET Sports operating in the decentralized finance (DeFi) space. These audits identify and mitigate security vulnerabilities that could be exploited by malicious actors, safeguarding user assets and maintaining the platform's integrity. Regular audits also build trust and confidence among users, reassuring them that the platform has been rigorously tested and verified by independent experts.” “Smart contract auditing is essential for platform like UBET Sports operating in the decentralized finance (DeFi) space. These audits identify and mitigate security vulnerabilities that could be exploited by malicious actors, safeguarding user assets and maintaining the platform's integrity. Regular audits also build trust and confidence among users, reassuring them that the platform has been rigorously tested and verified by independent experts.” “Recently, UBET Sports underwent three comprehensive smart contract audits, demonstrating its commitment to security and reliability. The first audit coincided with the launch of UBET Sports' decentralized exchange (DEX) for sports betting, establishing a secure foundation. Subsequent audits focused on enhancing the Automated Market Maker (AMM) to improve slippage, optimizing gas fees, improving push settlements, and structuring revenue-sharing mechanisms for liquidity provision, ”he added. “Recently, UBET Sports underwent three comprehensive smart contract audits, demonstrating its commitment to security and reliability. The first audit coincided with the launch of UBET Sports' decentralized exchange (DEX) for sports betting, establishing a secure foundation. Subsequent audits focused on enhancing the Automated Market Maker (AMM) to improve slippage, optimizing gas fees, improving push settlements, and structuring revenue-sharing mechanisms for liquidity provision, ”he added. Is a routine smart contract audit worth it? “Building an on-chain product presents challenges, such as the need for audits before each release, preventing continuous integration and deployment. Despite these challenges and the high costs associated with multiple audits, we prioritized security to protect its users. With two more smart contract updates planned this year, we continue to make steady progress in the SportiFi space, merging sports and DeFi” Daniel further said. “Building an on-chain product presents challenges, such as the need for audits before each release, preventing continuous integration and deployment. Despite these challenges and the high costs associated with multiple audits, we prioritized security to protect its users. With two more smart contract updates planned this year, we continue to make steady progress in the SportiFi space, merging sports and DeFi” Daniel further said. Conclusion Conclusion Billions of dollars have been lost over the years to crypto hacks perpetrated by bad actors. Smart contract vulnerability can give rise to a potential hack, which can, in turn, undermine a blockchain protocol and drain the funds of its users. Promoting a secure blockchain ecosystem has been at the heart of every cybersecurity measure, like smart contract audits that are designed to combat the incidence of cyber-attacks. A smart contract audit, which typically involves a detailed examination of a protocol’s codebase, has been recognized as one of the standard techniques for combating potential crypto hacks. It has increasingly become a significant practice in blockchain security with the emergence of professional audit firms and sophisticated tools.

The Importance Of a Routine Smart Contract Audit In Blockchain Security

Singularity: Streamlining Game Development with a Universal Backend Framework

এককতা: একটি ইউনিভার্সাল ব্যাকএন্ড ফ্রেমওয়ার্ক সহ গেম ডেভেলপমেন্টকে স্ট্রীমলাইন করা

Singularity: Optimierte Spieleentwicklung mit einem universellen Backend-Framework

Singularidad: agilización del desarrollo de juegos con un marco de backend universal

Singularity : rationaliser le développement de jeux avec un framework backend universel

सिंगलेरिटी: यूनिवर्सल बैकएंड फ्रेमवर्क के साथ गेम डेवलपमेंट को सुव्यवस्थित करना

Singularity: ユニバーサル バックエンド フレームワークによるゲーム開発の効率化

Singularity: 범용 백엔드 프레임워크로 게임 개발 간소화

Singularidade: simplificando o desenvolvimento de jogos com uma estrutura de back-end universal

Singularity: оптимизация разработки игр с помощью универсальной серверной платформы

Tekillik: Evrensel Arka Uç Çerçevesiyle Oyun Geliştirmeyi Kolaylaştırma

Điểm kỳ dị: Hợp lý hóa quá trình phát triển trò chơi với Khung phụ trợ phổ quát

Singularity：使用通用后端框架简化游戏开发

RGB++ Layer, now an upgraded concept from the RGB++ protocol, represents a further abstraction into an inclusive layer that extends isomorphic binding, smart contract capabilities, and bridgeless cross-chain functionality to all UTXO chains. With RGB++ Layer, the Bitcoin ecosystem is bound to become significantly enriched. Particularly, the rise of Bitcoin Finance (BTCFi), driven by RGB++ Layer, will usher the Bitcoin ecosystem into a new era of prosperity. RGB++ Layer performs multiple functions, bringing numerous exceptional features to the Bitcoin ecosystem. Its significance can be explained in 3 dimensions as follows: RGB++ Layer is Bitcoin’s asset issuance layer.
RGB++ Layer is Bitcoin’s smart contract layer.
RGB++ Layer is the interoperability layer of the entire UTXO world Bitcoin’s asset issuance layer The current asset issuance protocols on the Bitcoin chain, like Ordinals or BRC20, are far from well-designed and heavily reliant on centralized indexers. Unlike any previous solutions, RGB++ Layer can serve as a powerful asset issuance layer for Bitcoin. RGB++ Layer supports the issuance of various RGB++ assets, including User Defined Token (UDT) equivalent to ERC20, and Digital Object (DOB) equivalent to ERC721. Different from Ethereum, where ERC20 and ERC721 are issued and stored by smart contract accounts, UDT and DOB are stored in Turing-complete UTXOs, meaning that they are first-class assets on RGB++ Layer, on par with Ether on Ethereum. Thanks to the advantages of the UTXO model, RGB++ Layer can create a new paradigm for asset issuance — allowing the same asset to be issued on multiple chains simultaneously, with different proportions issued on each chain. This will provide asset issuers with a high degree of flexibility. When a project team issues a token, they don’t have to worry about losing users from one chain by issuing on another. Instead, they can issue a portion on BTC, a portion on BCH, and even a portion on the Dogecoin chain, extending their influence to the communities of all UTXO chains. Furthermore, RGB++ Layer will introduce a brand new asset issuing model called Initial Bitcoin Offering (IBO). This can be understood as a launchpad for all RGB++ assets. The IBO platform supports directly creating pools on UTXOSwap, a UTXO-based decentralized exchange, allowing newly issued assets to be traded with high liquidity. The IBO issuance method strikes a balance between the VC model and the Fair Launch model, offering a more sustainable way. It avoids the problem of lack of community interest while also ensuring that the project team remains motivated. Bitcoin’s smart contract layer The RGB++ Layer leverages the smart contract stack of CKB to provide Bitcoin with Turing-complete programmability. With smart contracts, the Bitcoin ecosystem can build a variety of DeFi protocols, creating a unique Bitcoin Finance (BTCFi) landscape. For example, UTXOSwap, a decentralized exchange (DEX) protocol, serve as the central hub of RGB++ Layer to aggregate the liquidity of various UTXO chains. UTXOSwap adopts intent-based trading as its core and implements an off-chain matching and on-chain verification process, leveraging the parallelism nature of UTXO to improve transaction efficiency. If you think it’s just a Uniswap for the Bitcoin ecosystem, then you’re mistaken. In addition to standard swaps, UTXOSwap also supports limit order and Time-Weighted Average Price (TWAP) transactions because it is intent-based. For instance, users can actively express their trading intents, such as “exchange 10 A tokens for at least 20 B tokens”, instead of passively accepting the market price. Another example is Stable++, a decentralized, over-collateralized stablecoin protocol. It issues $USDPP, the first stablecoin on RGB++ Layer. Stable++ build over-collateralized vaults and liquidation modules efficiently with the powerful Turing-complete programability of RGB++ Layer. As a user, you can collateralize $BTC or $CKB and mint $USDPP, a stablecoin compatible with all UTXO chains. You can circulate it freely within the Bitcoin ecosystem. Overall, the atomicity of the UTXO model enables UTXOs to function like Legos, allowing assets from different chains to interact and integrate, thereby spurring more DeFi innovation. This will foster the development of BTCFi, benefiting the entire Bitcoin ecosystem. The interoperability layer of the UTXO world RGB++ Layer serves as an inclusive layer that can connect with all UTXO chains, creating a universal interoperability layer of the entire UTXO world. This allows various assets from UTXO chains like Cardano, Dogecoin, BSV, and BCH to seamlessly integrate into the Bitcoin ecosystem, breaking down asset silos. The unparalleled feature of RGB++ Layer is Bridgeless Cross-chain Leap. This mechanism enables an asset on a UTXO chain to leap to another UTXO chain without bridges. For example, if Alice wants to transfer her RGB++ asset from the Bitcoin chain to the Litecoin chain, she first needs to spend the corresponding Bitcoin UTXO bound to her RGB++ asset. Then, a transaction should be constructed on RGB++ Layer to change the unlocking condition of the Turing-complete UTXO to her Litecoin UTXO. In this way, the leap from the Bitcoin chain to the Litecoin chain is successful. With this feature available, technically all RGB++ assets can be regarded as universal assets of the entire UTXO world because there are no longer barriers between chains, allowing assets to move freely. Imagine this: you can use A token issued on the BTC chain and exchange it for B token on the Cardano chain through a decentralized exchange. You can use a meme coin from the Dogecoin chain to play GameFi on a Bitcoin Layer 2 DApp chain. You can use a DOB from the CKB chain to subscribe to services on Nostr, and more. This elevates the interoperability of RGB++ assets within the UTXO world to unprecedented heights. Vision for the future Looking ahead, the Bitcoin ecosystem will be connected into a cohesive whole because of RGB++ Layer. Various UTXO-based assets, including inscriptions and runes, will flow seamlessly on RGB++ Layer, significantly enhancing the liquidity of the Bitcoin ecosystem. Innovations in BTCFi protocols such as decentralized trading, lending, and farming based on UTXO model will continually emerge. Ultimately, BTCFi will flourish, leading the Bitcoin ecosystem into a new era of prosperity. Written by: Chester, Research Lead of UTXO Stack RGB++ Layer, now an upgraded concept from the RGB++ protocol , represents a further abstraction into an inclusive layer that extends isomorphic binding, smart contract capabilities, and bridgeless cross-chain functionality to all UTXO chains. With RGB++ Layer, the Bitcoin ecosystem is bound to become significantly enriched. Particularly, the rise of Bitcoin Finance (BTCFi), driven by RGB++ Layer, will usher the Bitcoin ecosystem into a new era of prosperity. RGB++ protocol RGB++ protocol RGB++ Layer performs multiple functions, bringing numerous exceptional features to the Bitcoin ecosystem. Its significance can be explained in 3 dimensions as follows: RGB++ Layer is Bitcoin’s asset issuance layer. RGB++ Layer is Bitcoin’s smart contract layer. RGB++ Layer is the interoperability layer of the entire UTXO world RGB++ Layer is Bitcoin’s asset issuance layer. RGB++ Layer is Bitcoin’s smart contract layer. RGB++ Layer is the interoperability layer of the entire UTXO world Bitcoin’s asset issuance layer The current asset issuance protocols on the Bitcoin chain, like Ordinals or BRC20, are far from well-designed and heavily reliant on centralized indexers. Unlike any previous solutions, RGB++ Layer can serve as a powerful asset issuance layer for Bitcoin. RGB++ Layer supports the issuance of various RGB++ assets, including User Defined Token (UDT) equivalent to ERC20, and Digital Object (DOB) equivalent to ERC721. Different from Ethereum, where ERC20 and ERC721 are issued and stored by smart contract accounts, UDT and DOB are stored in Turing-complete UTXOs, meaning that they are first-class assets on RGB++ Layer, on par with Ether on Ethereum. Thanks to the advantages of the UTXO model, RGB++ Layer can create a new paradigm for asset issuance — allowing the same asset to be issued on multiple chains simultaneously, with different proportions issued on each chain. This will provide asset issuers with a high degree of flexibility. When a project team issues a token, they don’t have to worry about losing users from one chain by issuing on another. Instead, they can issue a portion on BTC, a portion on BCH, and even a portion on the Dogecoin chain, extending their influence to the communities of all UTXO chains. Furthermore, RGB++ Layer will introduce a brand new asset issuing model called Initial Bitcoin Offering (IBO). This can be understood as a launchpad for all RGB++ assets. The IBO platform supports directly creating pools on UTXOSwap, a UTXO-based decentralized exchange, allowing newly issued assets to be traded with high liquidity. The IBO issuance method strikes a balance between the VC model and the Fair Launch model, offering a more sustainable way. It avoids the problem of lack of community interest while also ensuring that the project team remains motivated. Bitcoin’s smart contract layer The RGB++ Layer leverages the smart contract stack of CKB to provide Bitcoin with Turing-complete programmability. With smart contracts, the Bitcoin ecosystem can build a variety of DeFi protocols, creating a unique Bitcoin Finance (BTCFi) landscape. For example, UTXOSwap, a decentralized exchange (DEX) protocol, serve as the central hub of RGB++ Layer to aggregate the liquidity of various UTXO chains. UTXOSwap adopts intent-based trading as its core and implements an off-chain matching and on-chain verification process, leveraging the parallelism nature of UTXO to improve transaction efficiency. If you think it’s just a Uniswap for the Bitcoin ecosystem, then you’re mistaken. In addition to standard swaps, UTXOSwap also supports limit order and Time-Weighted Average Price (TWAP) transactions because it is intent-based. For instance, users can actively express their trading intents, such as “exchange 10 A tokens for at least 20 B tokens”, instead of passively accepting the market price. Another example is Stable++, a decentralized, over-collateralized stablecoin protocol. It issues $USDPP, the first stablecoin on RGB++ Layer. Stable++ build over-collateralized vaults and liquidation modules efficiently with the powerful Turing-complete programability of RGB++ Layer. As a user, you can collateralize $BTC or $CKB and mint $USDPP, a stablecoin compatible with all UTXO chains. You can circulate it freely within the Bitcoin ecosystem. Overall, the atomicity of the UTXO model enables UTXOs to function like Legos, allowing assets from different chains to interact and integrate, thereby spurring more DeFi innovation. This will foster the development of BTCFi, benefiting the entire Bitcoin ecosystem. The interoperability layer of the UTXO world RGB++ Layer serves as an inclusive layer that can connect with all UTXO chains, creating a universal interoperability layer of the entire UTXO world. This allows various assets from UTXO chains like Cardano, Dogecoin, BSV, and BCH to seamlessly integrate into the Bitcoin ecosystem, breaking down asset silos. The unparalleled feature of RGB++ Layer is Bridgeless Cross-chain Leap. This mechanism enables an asset on a UTXO chain to leap to another UTXO chain without bridges. For example, if Alice wants to transfer her RGB++ asset from the Bitcoin chain to the Litecoin chain, she first needs to spend the corresponding Bitcoin UTXO bound to her RGB++ asset. Then, a transaction should be constructed on RGB++ Layer to change the unlocking condition of the Turing-complete UTXO to her Litecoin UTXO. In this way, the leap from the Bitcoin chain to the Litecoin chain is successful. With this feature available, technically all RGB++ assets can be regarded as universal assets of the entire UTXO world because there are no longer barriers between chains, allowing assets to move freely. Imagine this: you can use A token issued on the BTC chain and exchange it for B token on the Cardano chain through a decentralized exchange. You can use a meme coin from the Dogecoin chain to play GameFi on a Bitcoin Layer 2 DApp chain. You can use a DOB from the CKB chain to subscribe to services on Nostr, and more. This elevates the interoperability of RGB++ assets within the UTXO world to unprecedented heights. Vision for the future Looking ahead, the Bitcoin ecosystem will be connected into a cohesive whole because of RGB++ Layer. Various UTXO-based assets, including inscriptions and runes, will flow seamlessly on RGB++ Layer, significantly enhancing the liquidity of the Bitcoin ecosystem. Innovations in BTCFi protocols such as decentralized trading, lending, and farming based on UTXO model will continually emerge. Ultimately, BTCFi will flourish, leading the Bitcoin ecosystem into a new era of prosperity. Written by: Chester, Research Lead of UTXO Stack Written by : Chester , Research Lead of UTXO Stack Written by Chester Chester

RGB++ Layer: Transforming Bitcoin with Asset Issuance, Smart Contracts, and Interoperability

RGB++ স্তর: সম্পদ ইস্যু, স্মার্ট কন্ট্রাক্ট এবং ইন্টারঅপারেবিলিটি সহ বিটকয়েনকে রূপান্তর করা

RGB++-Ebene: Transformation von Bitcoin durch Asset-Ausgabe, Smart Contracts und Interoperabilität

Capa RGB++: transformando Bitcoin con emisión de activos, contratos inteligentes e interoperabilidad

Couche RGB++ : transformer Bitcoin avec l'émission d'actifs, les contrats intelligents et l'interopérabilité

RGB++ लेयर: एसेट जारीकरण, स्मार्ट कॉन्ट्रैक्ट्स और इंटरऑपरेबिलिटी के साथ बिटकॉइन को बदलना

RGB++ レイヤー: 資産発行、スマート コントラクト、相互運用性でビットコインを変革

RGB++ 레이어: 자산 발행, 스마트 계약 및 상호 운용성을 통해 비트코인 변환

Camada RGB++: Transformando Bitcoin com Emissão de Ativos, Contratos Inteligentes e Interoperabilidade

Уровень RGB++: преобразование биткойнов с помощью выпуска активов, смарт-контрактов и совместимости

RGB++ Katmanı: Varlık İhracı, Akıllı Sözleşmeler ve Birlikte Çalışabilirlik ile Bitcoin'i Dönüştürme

Lớp RGB++: Chuyển đổi Bitcoin bằng cách phát hành tài sản, hợp đồng thông minh và khả năng tương tác

RGB++ 层：通过资产发行、智能合约和互操作性改变比特币

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 30 of 42. 28. Economics of BitCoin Nodes (Reliance Document) {ID_000227} / {L3/219/1} 523. The document purports to contain notes relating to “The Economics of central core BitCoin Nodes” and is dated as if it was created in the period September-October 2008. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 524. The document has been backdated. Within the document are several hidden embedded zip files containing references to Microsoft Schema dating from 2014-2015 which did not exist in 2008. These references are not visible to someone editing the document or reviewing its internal content without forensic analysis. [PM26 [16-17]]. 525. Equations within {ID_000227} were created with MathType software v6.9, a version dating from February 2013 which did not exist in 2008. [PM40 [32, 42]]. 526. The document contains redundant hidden content of previous edits which do not appear on the face of the document. [PM26 [19-20]]. 527. The hidden embedded text within the document includes references to a web page URL which did not exist until on or after 11 April 2019. [PM26 [21]]. 528. The reference to the 11 April 2019 URL has been deleted from the face of the document and replaced with a footnote which appears to be a “note to self” about what would need to be added in a future draft (“Note: I will need to link to laws such as the CFAA (USA) – see LLM[…]”). Other footnotes have been introduced or edited to refer to Bitcoin in the future tense. The misleading effect of these edits is to make the document appear as if it was created at a time before Bitcoin was created. In fact, the document was created later, after 11 April 2019, and the anachronistic content was obscured by editing. [PM26 [19-24]]. 529. The document was created from a precursor document after 11 April 2019. No precursor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM26 [23]]. 530. The document {ID_000227} has an implausible edit time of 20 days 19 hours and 22 minutes consistent with the use of clock manipulation techniques. [PM26 [6-10]]. 531. 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_003937}, PM26 [1, 25-38]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 532. 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 by him in September / October 2008 which looked ahead to Bitcoin), contrary to fact. 533. Although the document metadata purports Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright after 11 April 2019, and a copy later 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 primarily relies. The metadata of that zip file is itself also irregular. [{ID_003927}, PM26 [1, 25-38]]. 534. 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. 535. The content introduced into the document, having the effect of making it appear to date from earlier than its true date, is phrased in the first person as a note from Dr Wright to himself. 536. 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. 537. Dr Wright is recorded in the metadata as the first author. 538. Dr Wright has not disclosed the precursor documents [PM26 [23]]. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 539. Dr Wright sought to explain away the presence of anachronistic references to Mathtype software and Microsoft schemas by referring to the effects of his computing environment in supposedly causing such elements to be inserted into documents merely through a document being opened (without any user interaction): Wright11 Appendix B, [6.3 to 6.4]{CSW/2/20}. 540. Dr Wright sought to explain the presence of remnant text, including the URL in the footnote dating from 2019, by saying that text from another document had become merged with the text of this document as a result of features of his computing environment: Wright11 Appendix B, [6.5 to 6.6] {CSW/2/20}. He also suggested that the article at the URL had limited relevance to the material content of his document. 541. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 541.1. Dr Wright’s explanation is contradicted by the clear expert evidence of Mr Madden, which is that the Mathtype references and schema references 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 fact that the metadata timestamps for this document were dated to 2008 but the raw data contained the elements set out above shows that the document has been forged by backdating. See Madden4, [158]; Madden / Placks joint statement2 at [8]; {Day16/35:19} to {Day16/38:11}; {Day16/125:7} to {Day16/125:18}. 541.2. It is wildly implausible that the features of a shared computing environment would cause two documents to become merged, and to do so in a way which resulted in the document not being corrupted and appearing normal on its face. See Madden4, [159]; Madden / Placks joint statement2 at [8]. 541.3. In his evidence, Dr Wright tried to justify his position by going so far as to claim implausibly that any digital document more than a few years’ old could be expected to have anomalous features in its raw data. He claimed never to have seen a file older than five years which was pristine in metadata, before being compelled to accept that the Bitcoin White Paper is pristine {Day3/20:5} to {Day3/20:25}. 541.4. In his evidence, Dr Wright attempted to explain that the footnote in the edited version of the document was obviously more apt to the text than the footnote in the remnant text. In doing so, he put forward a bizarre interpretation of the Bitcoin system in which the availability of injunctive relief is supposedly essential to preventing subversion of the system: {Day3/7:18} to {Day3/15:16}. (d) Conclusion 542. The points on this document gathered in Appendix 1 to Dr Wright’s Closing repeat a number of points I have already found to be unconvincing in relation to {ID_000217} above and they are equally unconvincing here. Furthermore, the argument that this document is the result of text from another document becoming merged into the document is particularly absurd. The argument presupposes disk read errors such that a disk sector containing a portion of another document is merged into the saved version of this document but without any trace of corruption or discontinuity. 543. In short, I found Dr Wright’s explanations wholly unconvincing, especially in the light of the detailed specific points made by Mr Madden. This document was plainly forged, and 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 30 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 30 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 28. Economics of BitCoin Nodes (Reliance Document) {ID_000227} / {L3/219/1} 523. The document purports to contain notes relating to “The Economics of central core BitCoin Nodes” and is dated as if it was created in the period September-October 2008. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 524. The document has been backdated. Within the document are several hidden embedded zip files containing references to Microsoft Schema dating from 2014-2015 which did not exist in 2008. These references are not visible to someone editing the document or reviewing its internal content without forensic analysis. [PM26 [16-17]]. 525. Equations within {ID_000227} were created with MathType software v6.9, a version dating from February 2013 which did not exist in 2008. [PM40 [32, 42]]. 526. The document contains redundant hidden content of previous edits which do not appear on the face of the document. [PM26 [19-20]]. 527. The hidden embedded text within the document includes references to a web page URL which did not exist until on or after 11 April 2019. [PM26 [21]]. 528. The reference to the 11 April 2019 URL has been deleted from the face of the document and replaced with a footnote which appears to be a “note to self” about what would need to be added in a future draft (“Note: I will need to link to laws such as the CFAA (USA) – see LLM[…]”). Other footnotes have been introduced or edited to refer to Bitcoin in the future tense. The misleading effect of these edits is to make the document appear as if it was created at a time before Bitcoin was created. In fact, the document was created later, after 11 April 2019, and the anachronistic content was obscured by editing. [PM26 [19-24]]. 529. The document was created from a precursor document after 11 April 2019. No precursor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM26 [23]]. 530. The document {ID_000227} has an implausible edit time of 20 days 19 hours and 22 minutes consistent with the use of clock manipulation techniques. [PM26 [6-10]]. 531. 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_003937}, PM26 [1, 25-38]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 532. 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 by him in September / October 2008 which looked ahead to Bitcoin), contrary to fact. 533. Although the document metadata purports Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright after 11 April 2019, and a copy later 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 primarily relies. The metadata of that zip file is itself also irregular. [{ID_003927}, PM26 [1, 25-38]]. 534. 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. 535. The content introduced into the document, having the effect of making it appear to date from earlier than its true date, is phrased in the first person as a note from Dr Wright to himself. 536. 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. 537. Dr Wright is recorded in the metadata as the first author. 538. Dr Wright has not disclosed the precursor documents [PM26 [23]]. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 539. Dr Wright sought to explain away the presence of anachronistic references to Mathtype software and Microsoft schemas by referring to the effects of his computing environment in supposedly causing such elements to be inserted into documents merely through a document being opened (without any user interaction): Wright11 Appendix B, [6.3 to 6.4]{CSW/2/20}. 540. Dr Wright sought to explain the presence of remnant text, including the URL in the footnote dating from 2019, by saying that text from another document had become merged with the text of this document as a result of features of his computing environment: Wright11 Appendix B, [6.5 to 6.6] {CSW/2/20}. He also suggested that the article at the URL had limited relevance to the material content of his document. 541. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 541.1. Dr Wright’s explanation is contradicted by the clear expert evidence of Mr Madden, which is that the Mathtype references and schema references 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 fact that the metadata timestamps for this document were dated to 2008 but the raw data contained the elements set out above shows that the document has been forged by backdating. See Madden4, [158]; Madden / Placks joint statement2 at [8]; {Day16/35:19} to {Day16/38:11}; {Day16/125:7} to {Day16/125:18}. 541.2. It is wildly implausible that the features of a shared computing environment would cause two documents to become merged, and to do so in a way which resulted in the document not being corrupted and appearing normal on its face. See Madden4, [159]; Madden / Placks joint statement2 at [8]. 541.3. In his evidence, Dr Wright tried to justify his position by going so far as to claim implausibly that any digital document more than a few years’ old could be expected to have anomalous features in its raw data. He claimed never to have seen a file older than five years which was pristine in metadata, before being compelled to accept that the Bitcoin White Paper is pristine {Day3/20:5} to {Day3/20:25}. 541.4. In his evidence, Dr Wright attempted to explain that the footnote in the edited version of the document was obviously more apt to the text than the footnote in the remnant text. In doing so, he put forward a bizarre interpretation of the Bitcoin system in which the availability of injunctive relief is supposedly essential to preventing subversion of the system: {Day3/7:18} to {Day3/15:16}. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 542. The points on this document gathered in Appendix 1 to Dr Wright’s Closing repeat a number of points I have already found to be unconvincing in relation to {ID_000217} above and they are equally unconvincing here. Furthermore, the argument that this document is the result of text from another document becoming merged into the document is particularly absurd. The argument presupposes disk read errors such that a disk sector containing a portion of another document is merged into the saved version of this document but without any trace of corruption or discontinuity. 543. In short, I found Dr Wright’s explanations wholly unconvincing, especially in the light of the detailed specific points made by Mr Madden. This document was plainly forged, and 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

Forensic Analysis Reveals Backdating in Craig Wright’s Bitcoin Node Economics Paper

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

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 26 of 42. 24. Timecoin ODT Whitepaper (Reliance Document) {ID_000254} 446. The document purports to be a precursor draft of the Bitcoin White Paper and is presented as if written by Dr Wright. It is dated in the period 6 May 2008 to 12 December 2008 in its metadata, and Dr Wright states its approximate date to be 6 May 2008 in his Chain of Custody information. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 447. The document has been backdated. Rather than being a precursor document to the Bitcoin White Paper as it purports to be, this document has been created from the Bitcoin White Paper subsequently and edited in such a way that it appears as if it was precursor work. [PM2 60-64]]. 448. {ID_000254} has apparently been converted from the Bitcoin White Paper (which is a PDF) into a more easily editable format and has then undergone further conversions via intermediate documents [PM2 [60-64]]. Font configurations and the absence of diagrams are consistent with this conclusion [PM2 [17-28]]. No such intermediate document has been disclosed. 449. Diagrams have been omitted from this document as a result of the conversion process from PDF. The inclusion of the object replacement character ￼ within the document [a point where a diagram would be expected to appear is consistent with {ID_000254} being created by a process of conversion of a different document. [PM2 [28]]. 450. Where diagrams are absent, the document nevertheless preserves margin indentations from the Bitcoin White Paper PDF, but which do not match the content of the document. [PM2 [29-37]]. 451. The document irregularly contains words throughout in which hyphens ought to appear but are missing. This is not consistent with ordinary dictation or typing error but is as an artefact of conversion from PDF and backdating. [PM2 [38-44]]. 452. A conversion of the Bitcoin White Paper PDF to editable form would result in corruption of formulae. In each case where those formulae would have appeared corrupted, they have been deleted from {ID_000254}, leaving behind white space. [PM2 [45-48]]. 453. The document contains irregular line breaks consistent with conversion from the Bitcoin White Paper PDF into editable form and backdating. [PM2 [49-51]]. 454. The document contains text that matches the corrected text of the Bitcoin White Paper (2009 version) [PM2 [12]]. It does not match the October 2008 or November 2008 versions of the Bitcoin White Paper, even though this document purports to be earlier than both of them. 455. The document has been disclosed with irregular metadata listed in relation to its Created and Last Accessed external metadata properties. [PM2 [6-11]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 456. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (presenting as a predecessor draft of the Bitcoin White Paper and supposedly written by him in early 2008), contrary to fact. Further, the document uses the same software (OpenOffice Writer) as used by Satoshi Nakamoto. 457. Dr Wright has positively asserted in these proceedings that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 458. The document bears Dr Wright’s name and contact details. 459. The contact details included refer to Charles Sturt University. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has claimed to have drafted and shared versions of the Bitcoin White Paper while studying at Charles Sturt University, and to have discussed the concepts with teaching staff at Charles Sturt University. [Wright1 [87], Wright4 [52]]. 460. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright positively relies upon the presence of the word “Timecoin” in documents he has disclosed as being precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper and thus forming part of the story behind his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Moreover, on the basis of his narrative, this is a detail which would have been known to him and to few, if any, others. [Wright1 [26], Wright4 [6.c.x.]]. 461. The document contains metadata that purports to pre-date the Bitcoin White Paper, indicating efforts at backdating to support Dr Wright’s claim. 462. Dr Wright claims, in his chain of custody information, that only he drafted this document. 463. Dr Wright has stated in these proceedings that this was a draft of a document under the name TimeCoin which later became bitcoin. [Exhibit CSW-5] 464. Dr Wright has not disclosed the apparent intermediate document from which this document was created. [PM2 [63]]. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 465. Dr Wright sought to explain away a number of the anomalous findings by saying that both this document and the Bitcoin White Paper were originally created in LATEX and that the commands in the original code accounted for such features as (a) the notes being in a font which was the same as would later be used for tables in the White Paper; (b) the OBJ character; (c) indentation in empty lines corresponding to the size of flowcharts later featuring in the Bitcoin White Paper; and (d) irregularities in hyphenation. See {CSW/2/26} to {CSW/2/28}; {Day3/139:21} to {Day3/152:8}. 466. Dr Wright sought to explain away the content of the document matching the March 2009 version of the Bitcoin White Paper rather than the earlier released versions by claiming that he does not “write things linearly”. He claimed to have used text in this early document, edited it out again in the August and October 2008 versions of the White Paper and then added it back in again for the March 2009 version. See {CSW/2/28} to {CSW/2/29}; {Day3/153:9} to {Day3/154:10}. 467. Dr Wright sought to explain away the irregular metadata by saying that his use of “Xcopy and related tools” somehow accounted for it: {CSW/2/28}. 468. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 468.1. The Bitcoin White Paper was not originally created in LATEX, as convincingly established by the expert evidence of Mr Rosendahl (which was agreed by Dr Wright’s expert, Mr Lynch, in the joint statement). There is equally no basis for saying that this document was originally created in LATEX. Furthermore, no LAT EX.tex file has been provided to support Dr Wright’s account in relation to the creation of this document. 468.2. The use of LATEX to create the document would not account for the presence of the OBJ (object replacement) character, which on the expert evidence is purely and simply an artefact of conversion from PDF: see PM2 [26-28] {H/17/8}. 468.3. Neither would the use of LATEX to create the document account for Dr Wright having predicted in a precursor document precisely the size required for diagrams and having applied coding to mark out indentations for the diagrams in what would be empty space in the document. 468.4. Neither would the use of LATEX to create the document account for there being irregular hyphenation in precisely the points where line breaks appear in the text of the Bitcoin White Paper. Dr Wright could only weakly account for this as him doing “unusual things” and deliberately including irregular hyphenation {Day3/10:11}. This explanation was nonsensical. Further, it assumed that his deliberate inclusion of irregular hyphenation just happened by coincidence to fall in the places where line breaks existed in the Bitcoin White Paper. 468.5. Dr Wright’s explanation for the irregular metadata was at odds with the independent expert evidence. It also assumed that this irregularity happened by coincidence to co-exist with the other irregularities, when in fact all suggest backdating. 468.6. Dr Wright’s explanation for the content of the document including changes which were made to the Bitcoin White Paper between its 2008 and 2009 versions is inherently unlikely. It also assumes that this irregularity happened by coincidence to co-exist with all the other irregularities, when in fact all suggest backdating. (d) Conclusion 469. The explanations gathered in Appendix 1 to Dr Wright’s Closing confirm his reliance on both this document and the Bitcoin White Paper being based on earlier LATEX files and his allegation that the diagrams were created with LATEX. I find those explanations to be false, in view of my more general finding that the Bitcoin White Paper was not produced in LATEX. Other explanations (the indentations, the supposed ‘steganographic watermarking’ and formatting irregularities) are just a desperate attempt to explain away Dr Wright’s failure to be able to reproduce the Bitcoin White Paper in LATEX. The ‘non-linear’ working explanation (see [468.6] above) is ridiculous, in the light of all the other evidence which clearly indicates that this document was forged by Dr Wright. I so conclude. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

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

COPA Challenges Authenticity of Wright's Timecoin ODT Document

COPA Presents Evidence of Bitcoin White Paper Fabrication by Craig Wright 

Authors:
(1) Li Siyao, S-Lab, Nanyang Technological University;
(2) Tianpei Gu, Lexica and Work completed at UCLA;
(3) Weiye Xiao, Southeast University;
(4) Henghui Ding, S-Lab, Nanyang Technological University;
(5) Ziwei Liu, S-Lab, Nanyang Technological University;
(6) Chen Change Loy, S-Lab, Nanyang Technological University and a Corresponding Author. Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction Related Work
Mixamo Line Art Dataset
Our Approach
Experiment
Conclusion and References 3. Mixamo Line Art Dataset To facilitate training and evaluation of geometrized line inbetweening, we develop a large-scale dataset, named MixamoLine240, which consists of 240 sequences of consecutive line drawing frames, with 100 sequences for training and 140 for validation and testing. To obtain this vast amount of cartoon line data, we utilize a “Cel-shading” technique, i.e., to use computer graphics software (Blender in this work) to render 3D resources into an anime-style appearance that mimics the hand-drawn artistry. Unlike previous works [25, 29] that only provide raster images, MixamoLine240 also provides ground-truth geometrization labels for each frame, which include the coordinates of a group of vertices (V ) and the connection topology (T). Additionally, we assign an index number (R[i]) to each 2D endpoint (V [i]) that refers to a unique vertex in the 3D mesh of the character, as illustrated in Figure 3, which can be further used to deduce the vertex level correspondence. Specifically, given two frames I0 and I1 in a sequence, the 3D reference IDs reveal the vertex correspondence {(i, j)} for those vertices i in I0 and j in I1 having R0[i] = R1[j], while the rest unmatched vertices are marked as occluded. This strategy allows us to produce correspondence pairs with arbitrary frame gaps to flexibly adjust the input frame rate during training. Next, we discuss the construction and challenges inherent in the data. Data Construction. In Blender, the mesh structure of a 3D character remains stable, i.e., the number of 3D vertex and the edge topology keep constant, when moving without additional subdivision modifier. We employ this property to achieve consistent line art rendering and accurate annotations for geometrization and vertex matching. As shown in Figure 3, the original 3D mesh contains all the necessary line segments required to represent the character in line art. During rendering, the visible outline from the camera’s perspective is selected based on the material boundary and the object’s edge. This process ensures that every line segment in the resulting raster image corresponds to an edge in the original mesh. The 2D endpoints of each line segment are simply the relevant 3D vertices projected onto the camera plane, referenced by the unique and consistent index of the corresponding 3D vertex. Meanwhile, since the 3D mesh naturally defines the vertex connections, the topology of the 2D lines can be transferred from the selective edges used for rendering. To prevent any topological ambiguity that may be caused by overlapped vertices in 3D space, we merge the endpoints that are within a Euclidean distance of 0.1 in the projected 2D space. This enables us to obtain both the raster line drawings and the accurate labels of each frame. To create a diverse dataset, we used the open-source 3D material library Mixamo [1] and selected 20 characters and 20 actions, as shown in Figure 4. Each action has an average of 191 frames. We combined 10 characters and 10 actions to render 100 sequences, with a total of 19,930 frames as the training set. We then used the remaining 10 characters and 10 actions to render an 18,230-frame test set, ensuring that the training and testing partitions are exclusive. We also created a 44-sequence validation set, consisting of 20 unseen characters, 20 unseen actions, and 4 with both unseen character and action. To create this set, we combined the test characters “Swat”and “Warrok” and actions “sword slash” and “hip hop” with the training characters and actions. The validation set contains 11,102 frames and was also rendered at 1080p resolution with a frame rate of 60 fps. To ensure consistency across all frames, we cropped and resized each frame to a unified 720 × 720 character-centered image. Challenges. Table 1 summarizes the statistics that reflect the difficulty of the line inbetweening task under various input frame rates. With an increase in frame gaps, the inbetweening task becomes more challenging with larger motion magnitudes and higher occlusion percentages. For instance, when the frame gap is 9, the input frame rate becomes 6 fps, and the average vertex shift is 62.8 pixels. The mean value of the maximum vertex shift in a frame (“Avg. max vtx shift”) reaches 192.3 pixels, which is 27% of the image width. Additionally, nearly half of the vertices are unmatched in such cases, making line inbetweening a tough problem. Furthermore, the image composition of the test set is more complex than that of the training set. A training frame has an average of 1,256 vertices and 1,753 edges, while a test frame has an average of 1,512 vertices and 2,099 edges since the test set has more complex characters such as “Maw”. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DEED license. Authors: (1) Li Siyao, S-Lab, Nanyang Technological University; (2) Tianpei Gu, Lexica and Work completed at UCLA; (3) Weiye Xiao, Southeast University; (4) Henghui Ding, S-Lab, Nanyang Technological University; (5) Ziwei Liu, S-Lab, Nanyang Technological University; (6) Chen Change Loy, S-Lab, Nanyang Technological University and a Corresponding Author. Authors: Authors: (1) Li Siyao, S-Lab, Nanyang Technological University; (2) Tianpei Gu, Lexica and Work completed at UCLA; (3) Weiye Xiao, Southeast University; (4) Henghui Ding, S-Lab, Nanyang Technological University; (5) Ziwei Liu, S-Lab, Nanyang Technological University; (6) Chen Change Loy, S-Lab, Nanyang Technological University and a Corresponding Author. Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction Abstract and 1. Introduction Related Work Mixamo Line Art Dataset Our Approach Experiment Conclusion and References Related Work Related Work Mixamo Line Art Dataset Mixamo Line Art Dataset Our Approach Our Approach Experiment Experiment Conclusion and References Conclusion and References 3. Mixamo Line Art Dataset To facilitate training and evaluation of geometrized line inbetweening, we develop a large-scale dataset, named MixamoLine240, which consists of 240 sequences of consecutive line drawing frames, with 100 sequences for training and 140 for validation and testing. To obtain this vast amount of cartoon line data, we utilize a “Cel-shading” technique, i.e., to use computer graphics software (Blender in this work) to render 3D resources into an anime-style appearance that mimics the hand-drawn artistry. Unlike previous works [25, 29] that only provide raster images, MixamoLine240 also provides ground-truth geometrization labels for each frame, which include the coordinates of a group of vertices (V ) and the connection topology (T). Additionally, we assign an index number (R[i]) to each 2D endpoint (V [i]) that refers to a unique vertex in the 3D mesh of the character, as illustrated in Figure 3, which can be further used to deduce the vertex level correspondence. Specifically, given two frames I0 and I1 in a sequence, the 3D reference IDs reveal the vertex correspondence {(i, j)} for those vertices i in I0 and j in I1 having R0[i] = R1[j], while the rest unmatched vertices are marked as occluded. This strategy allows us to produce correspondence pairs with arbitrary frame gaps to flexibly adjust the input frame rate during training. Next, we discuss the construction and challenges inherent in the data. Data Construction. In Blender, the mesh structure of a 3D character remains stable, i.e., the number of 3D vertex and the edge topology keep constant, when moving without additional subdivision modifier. We employ this property to achieve consistent line art rendering and accurate annotations for geometrization and vertex matching. As shown in Figure 3, the original 3D mesh contains all the necessary line segments required to represent the character in line art. During rendering, the visible outline from the camera’s perspective is selected based on the material boundary and the object’s edge. This process ensures that every line segment in the resulting raster image corresponds to an edge in the original mesh. The 2D endpoints of each line segment are simply the relevant 3D vertices projected onto the camera plane, referenced by the unique and consistent index of the corresponding 3D vertex. Meanwhile, since the 3D mesh naturally defines the vertex connections, the topology of the 2D lines can be transferred from the selective edges used for rendering. To prevent any topological ambiguity that may be caused by overlapped vertices in 3D space, we merge the endpoints that are within a Euclidean distance of 0.1 in the projected 2D space. This enables us to obtain both the raster line drawings and the accurate labels of each frame. Data Construction. To create a diverse dataset, we used the open-source 3D material library Mixamo [1] and selected 20 characters and 20 actions, as shown in Figure 4. Each action has an average of 191 frames. We combined 10 characters and 10 actions to render 100 sequences, with a total of 19,930 frames as the training set. We then used the remaining 10 characters and 10 actions to render an 18,230-frame test set, ensuring that the training and testing partitions are exclusive. We also created a 44-sequence validation set, consisting of 20 unseen characters, 20 unseen actions, and 4 with both unseen character and action. To create this set, we combined the test characters “Swat”and “Warrok” and actions “sword slash” and “hip hop” with the training characters and actions. The validation set contains 11,102 frames and was also rendered at 1080p resolution with a frame rate of 60 fps. To ensure consistency across all frames, we cropped and resized each frame to a unified 720 × 720 character-centered image. Challenges. Table 1 summarizes the statistics that reflect the difficulty of the line inbetweening task under various input frame rates. With an increase in frame gaps, the inbetweening task becomes more challenging with larger motion magnitudes and higher occlusion percentages. For instance, when the frame gap is 9, the input frame rate becomes 6 fps, and the average vertex shift is 62.8 pixels. The mean value of the maximum vertex shift in a frame (“Avg. max vtx shift”) reaches 192.3 pixels, which is 27% of the image width. Additionally, nearly half of the vertices are unmatched in such cases, making line inbetweening a tough problem. Furthermore, the image composition of the test set is more complex than that of the training set. A training frame has an average of 1,256 vertices and 1,753 edges, while a test frame has an average of 1,512 vertices and 2,099 edges since the test set has more complex characters such as “Maw”. Challenges. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

Deep Geometrized Cartoon Line Inbetweening: Mixamo Line Art Dataset

Lifelong Intelligence Beyond the Edge using Hyperdimensional Computing: Abstract and Introduction

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

Looks Like Craig Wright’s Dissertation Proposal Took a Time Machine to 2019

Craig Wright’s Homework Gets an F from Forensic Analysts 

Stories, News & Mentions about FURTHERIUM

Furtherium’s Stories on HackerNoon