Get the most recent info and news about MobiFi on HackerNoon, where 10k+ technologists publish stories for 4M+ monthly readers.

MobiFi

mobifi

According to our MobiFi price prediction, MoFi is forecasted to trade within a price range of $ 0.001931 and $ 0.001962 this week. MobiFi will increase by 1.61% and reach $ 0.001962 by Oct 09, 2023 if it reaches the higher value target. What is the ...

MobiFi (MoFi) Price Prediction 2023, 2024, 2025–2030

A few weeks ago I was asked to give a talk at one of the most distinguished elite technological units in the Israeli Defense Forces. The goal was to expose them to product development and entrepreneurship in the startup world. I thought it through and decided to try and visualize my experience through dimensional thinking and data points which to depict the entrepreneurial experience. I used scientific language and data visualization to tell my story as an entrepreneur. The Entrepreneurial Playfield Imagine that you could map the entrepreneurial experience using a set of coordinates. In my view, the playfield of any entrepreneur includes a surface (composed of the x and y axis) which map your actions- what you do during your entrepreneurial journey. The altitudinal dimension (the z axis) marks your feelings — how you feel at different time of this journey — are you happy, sad, motivated etc. This combination of your emotions and your actions are the essence of any experience of an entrepreneur and compose your space in the world. Entrepreneurial Data Points I defined 6 types of data point types which compose and illustrate the experience of any entrepreneur during his journey (they could be positioned in the coordinate system we just defined): the question where do you start is one which many entrepreneurs or people who would like to become ones ask themselves. “I have an idea for an app”, or “an idea for a startup”, or you just want to become an entrepreneur, what do you do? My view on this is that a great entrepreneur starts with a problem — the starting point. To build a great product or a great company you must find a problem your are passionate to solve and then ask yourself “does this problem really worth solving?”. You should talk to people, observe what they do and start experimenting with prototypes and sketches in order to find out if this is a problem worth solving. But whatever you do — start with the problem. Starting Point — The most pervasive type of data points in the life of an entrepreneur are decision points. You will face critical decision points during your journey such as “should I get an investment from a certain investor?” or “should I pivot from the original product”. You will also face daily decision points such as hiring developers or not and small yet important decisions such as should you have a meeting or let your team communicate and solve the issue themselves without a formal meeting. I think that the most important thing you need to do when facing a decision point is know the data you collected about it and make quick decisions. Then, correct your actions along the way. The worst thing you could do is not decide at all and postpone decisions. If you wait and hesitate you will lose momentum and knowledge. You rather fail fast and correct your decision along the way then wait and learn nothing about your decision. If you did basic risk analysis and made a knowledgeable decision, there is 30% you will get it wrong and 70% you will get it right. It’s better to start with 70% success rate and improve it then doing nothing. Decision Point — as an entrepreneur you will find yourself working and feeling you are all over the place. You will do product development, design, coding, marketing, you will manage a team and raise capital. Anyone could easily get lost in all those tasks and lose your focus. In addition, you will probably fall in love with your design and your product — entrepreneurs think their idea is the best product and are blinded by adding new features and polishing their current design. But are you building the right products? are you solving the real problem? In other words, it is extremely easy to lose focus as an entrepreneur. This is why I defined 4 focal point you should think about when feeling distracted and lost in the way: Focal Point — Think of these when you feel like you are distracted and defocused. It will help you focus on the core missions and how you can really progress and scale. 4 focal points — There is nothing more important for your company and product than understanding your users. Being user focused will help you plan and make better and valuable decisions. Your users bring you back to reality and to what’s important. They tell you the truth about your product, your goals and your problem. They are brutally honest by their actions and that’s a good thing. Users — defining goals will help you focus on success. “Are you on the right track or not?”, “Are your actions valuable or a waste of times?”. If you do not have clear goals you can’t have clear actions and your team cannot be aligned with your vision. Define clear goals to get everyone on board toward your vision and to determine if you are successful or need to change things to increase your chances of success. Your Goals mark your destination point along your journey. It doesn’t matter if you do all this way to reach the wrong destination, right? Goals Metrics are what bound you to the numbers — the data, and let you know if you achieved the goals you defined with your team. If you set a goal to build the coolest product, how do you measure your success? coolness level? but if you set your goal to increase retention by 100%, or increase engagement by 70%. you have a tangible goal and metrics so you and your team could measure and determine if you succeeded or not. These are like the coordinate in the compass you use to get to your destination points. Metrics — back to the starting point, remember that if your problem is worth being solved you need to feel like everyday is your first day and you learn more and more about your problem, your users and your goals. It is easy to get carried away with adding cool features, or raising capital. But always think of your problem when you get defocused and distracted. Problem — Two more critical data points in the life of an entrepreneur are depict his or her emotional state. The ups and the downs. The celebration moments and the sad moments. These are points when you feel high, when you are so excited you cannot fall asleep and when you are on top of the world — Nothing can stop you. I had moments like these when we launched our product for the first time and when we presented our company in conferences and pitch nights. Enjoy these moments but be aware not to get carried away and always think how to convert these moments into focal points right away to move on towards achieving your goals. Maximum Point — These points are the worst in the life of an entrepreneur. But you will have many of those, sorry. These points are when you feel like nothing you do works, that you do not have motivation to get up from bed in the morning. I had many of those, when I got rejection after rejection from investors and when no one came after we launch the first version of our product. The question is how do you get up on your feet fast after those minimum points. You guessed it right, you turn it into a focal point and focus on what’s important Your users, goals, metrics and the problem you are soling. Minimum Point — Finally, the here I like to divide it to two types of ending points — and . Ending Point — local global a global ending point illustrates your journey as an entrepreneur. If you are an entrepreneur at heart, ! you never stop building and creating. If the problem you are trying to solve is a real big one and you are passionate about solving it, you will find a way solve it. If not with this product, with the next one. Global Ending Point — there is no global ending point this point illustrates the end of a project, a company or a product you work on. This is a real tough one and it is often combined with a a and The decision to give up on a startup, to break up with your team and giving up on your “dream” is extremely emotional. However, you should always convert this point into a decision and focal point. When we decided to move on from Mobifile we used our goals and metrics to understand if we achieved success. These will help you put in perspective the emotional aspect of terminating a project, and make your decisions in a reasonable manner. The numbers will tell you what to do and bring you back to reality. Whatever you decide, always remember that this is a local ending point and not a global one — keep on going and solve real problems you are passionate about, there are many out there and waiting just for you to be solved. Local Ending Point — minimum point, decision point a focal point. In conclusion, being an entrepreneur is full of highs, lows, new starts and tough decisions, but never forget the big picture — if you connect all those data points you will find out that together they compose something bigger than yourself — your impact on this world, the change you make in people’s lives. The Full presentation of what’s the point of being an entrepreneur: Full presentation — all rights reserved Illai Gescheit

What’s the Point of Being An Entrepreneur?

Authors: (1) Maria Rigaki, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic and maria.rigaki@fel.cvut.cz; (2) Sebastian Garcia, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic and sebastian.garcia@agents.fel.cvut.cz. Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Threat Model Background and Related Work Methodology Experiments Setup Results Discussion Conclusion, Acknowledgments, and References Appendix 6 Results 6.1 Malware Evasion To evaluate MEME, we tested its evasion capabilities compared to four other algorithms. Figure 3 shows the evasion rates of all algorithms against four different targets. Generally, we can see that some targets are more challenging than others. For example, the Sorel-FFNN target seems the hardest to evade, while Ember seems the easiest. MEME outperforms the PPO algorithm in all four targets, with a difference in mean evasion rate between 5-10% depending on the target. This result indicates that creating a surrogate model and running additional training steps is beneficial and produces a better policy. MEME also outperforms MAB in three out of four targets and GAMMA in all four, showing stable overall performance. GAMMA is the only method affected by the time constraint and, in most experiments, manages to process less than 100 binaries. However, it performs almost as well as MEME on the Sorel-FFNN. This shows that the RL methods, including MAB, did not learn the simple strategy of section injection that GAMMA uses, which is part of their action set. Average number of binary modifications to evade the target. The numbers for MAB correspond to the minimal samples created. Random, PPO, and MEME numbers correspond to the mean episode length of the final evaluation on the test set. Table 2. The AV evasion rate was over 50% for both PPO and MEME, with MEME achieving an average evasion rate of 59%. This demonstrates that even though AV is more complex than a single classifier, it can still be bypassed. In terms of required modifications for a malicious binary to appear benign (Table 2), MEME has the lowest average changes against Sorel-FFNN and Microsoft Defender. MAB performs better with lower average changes against Ember and Sorel-LGB, as it aims to minimize the required actions. However, if MAB struggles with evasion, the average modifications increase. Unfortunately, it was not possible to get the number of modifications for each binary from the GAMMA attack since the framework that implements the attack does not provide this metric. Surrogate agreement metrics with the test set for each target model. Table 3. 6.2 Surrogate Evaluation Table 3 shows the agreement scores of the surrogate models with their respective targets. The label agreement scores were higher than 97% for all targets. In the feature agreement metrics, 9 out of 10 top features, according to SHAP feature importances were the same for the Ember target and the respective surrogates. The percentage is slightly lower for Sorel-LGB, with 7.2 out of the top 10 feature agreement and 16.2 out of the top 20. However, the feature agreement metrics get significantly lower regarding the Sorel-FFNN target, even though the label agreement is higher than 98%. This target is also the harder one to evade for the RL-based methods. This high level of label agreement was reached with only 2,048 queries, significantly lower than reported in prior work (25k) [32]. This paper is under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

MEME vs. PPO: Analyzing Evasion Rates and Binary Modifications in Malware Detection

Vim Commands for Text Modification In the realm of Vim, mastering essential commands like append, change word, and replace can significantly enhance your text editing prowess. Append ( ) a Appending text using `a` places you in insert mode, allowing for seamless additions after the cursor position. For instance, adding a new field in a file becomes intuitive: # Go to the end of the line $ (to reach the end of a line) # Use 'a' to append text a Change Word ( ) and Replace ( ) cw r/R - : Alter a word or overwrite text until the next punctuation character or space. Example: Correcting a word, say 'Hackernoon' to 'World' involves using `cw` and editing the text. cw - : Replace one character (`r`) or overwrite text (`R`). Typing errors or changing your mind about the edit becomes effortless: r/R # Change 'Hackernoon' to 'World' (with a typo) cw World # Correct the typo using 'r' (replaces one character) re # Overwrite the text with 'R' R Discover Anything Refining Text and Streamlining Edits Vim offers shortcuts for effective text refinement: - : Use arrow keys for navigation and `$` to reach the end of a line. Navigate - : Trim trailing spaces by maneuvering with arrow keys and using to delete from the cursor position to the end of the line. Deleting Spaces D Wrapping Up Modifications and Writing Files Once edits are complete, ensure to save changes: # Save changes and exit :wq (write and quit) Conclusion Mastering these foundational Vim commands empowers efficient text editing and streamlines the process of modifying files. With practice, these commands become second nature, boosting productivity and precision in your editing endeavors.

Vim -  2 Commands for Text Modification

Smartphones have become indispensable tools for a wide variety of work and personal tasks. However, many people admit that mobile devices have also grown into our ultimate distractions, with an endless stream of notifications, an overwhelming number of icons on the screen, and plenty of apps vying for our attention. The issue of maintaining the ‘life-phone’ balance is getting evergreen, but potential controversy can be eliminated – with a responsible and mindful approach. It applies to both quantity and quality aspects, meaning you cut back on screen time when it’s too much, prioritize functional phone usage depending on your professional and leisure needs, and optimize your mobile experience for convenience and efficiency by introducing some screen modifications. As the first two are pretty straightforward, let’s touch upon the third facet more closely and discuss four concentration-promoting and productivity-boosting screen customization strategies that can help you alleviate distractions, stay more focused on your daily to-dos, and reap some extra motivation when using your iPhone. Declutter and Organize Your Screen Space Like your living space, your digital space should be kept in order. Messy environments are shown to trigger stress and induce disorientation and procrastination, thus degrading focus and productivity. Flip through your screen pages indicating the apps you haven’t been using for a couple of months now, and delete them. The accumulation of irrelevant icons provokes digital noise and annoyance, occupying and cluttering your screen space and distracting your eyes from the ones you really need. The next step is organizing your space to address your functional necessities. You can use a ready-to-go home screen pack template for the structure, and fill it out with widgets and icons in your preferred sequence. These visual arrangements will help you eliminate the risk of randomness while browsing your phone, saving time and promoting mental focus. Overall, there are many auxiliary apps available to pick some drafts and ideas. For instance, the MyScreen app provides the whole package of the latest and most creative screen customization features, including themes, wallpapers, widgets, icon packs, keyboards, and more. Determine Essential Work and Lifestyle Tools and Set Priorities Highlighting the things you regularly need for work or leisure activities makes them quickly accessible, promoting concentration on your intentions and speeding up the outcomes. If your main goal is enhancing your screen time for work, prioritize the tools that you actually use for work, think documents, messengers, scanning apps, or other utilities. If your smartphone usage is more lifestyle, ensure easy reach for the stuff you engage with most frequently. You can also add widgets for the things you want to keep at your fingertips or at the top of your mind. For example, you can track the UV index, weather forecast, stock exchange, calendar events, steps count, shopping lists, and more besides standard date and time. Social media icon placement requires special attention as these are the most time-consuming and interrupting apps of all. Consider placing them on the second or third pages of your screen so they don’t spot your eye each time you unlock your phone. You can go further and switch off notifications to avoid random alerts popping up on the screen. These ‘out of sight, out of mind’ tweaks will help you alleviate the presence of social media in your daily life and stay focused on what you are up to. Display Personally Beneficial Content Since your phone screen is something you observe repeatedly during the day, it’s a no-brainer to fill it with content that resonates with your objectives and facilitates your goals. Once the screen space is cleaned and organized, it’s time to review what else can be added to promote your mindfulness and motivation. For example, you can introduce a widget listing your intentions for the day or displaying your progress toward your daily health goals, such as 10K or water intake. Another advantageous tweak is setting the wallpaper, which addresses you personally and appeals to your state of mind. Even with a brief and unintentional eye contact, what we see launches a chain of cognitive and psycho-emotional reactions in the brain. Naturally, as long as you bring a sense of purpose to the table, you can turn your phone screen into a stress reliever, mood booster, source of motivation, or whatever else you’re looking for. It may sound too good to be true, but it’s science-backed that seeing calming nature scenery – even on your phone screen – promotes stress relief and relaxation, funny pictures make you smile, and positive affirmations keep you encouraged and uplifted. MyScreen offers a vast, constantly updating catalog of live and still wallpapers if you need to pick some fresh ideas that capture your eye. To enhance the effect, consider dividing the screen area between functional and inspirational constituents. Place the icons above, below, or around the central theme of your wallpaper so they don’t overlap, and you can still see the purposeful part of the picture without barriers. Optimize Color Schemes and Design Elements The colors and patterns we see can subconsciously impact our mental and emotional states. While your favorite ones are the clear winners, it’s also worth taking into account some common associations. Darker colors can induce gloominess and sadness, while brighter and lighter colors foster happiness and optimism. Calm pastel colors promote serenity and focus, and warm neutrals are comforting and uplifting. Besides, the color choice should not be generalized, as each color has several shades that can induce either positive, neutral, or negative responses in you. Overstimulating bold patterns and combinations of colors that clash with each other can provoke mental discomfort, overload your eyes and brain, cause disturbance and anxiety, disrupt concentration, and drain your productivity without you even realizing it. And vice versa, when all design elements are tuned with one another, your screen will feel harmonious and pleasing, complementing your productive mode. Takeaway As the digital environment we inhabit via our phones is where we spend quite a bit of time daily, its design should naturally be approached as a matter of personal requirements and preferences. Unpersonalized and messy screens can provoke a negatively persuaded, disorienting experience and blur focus and productivity. In contrast, an organized, visually appealing screen with clear accents aligned with your needs will support your mental sharpness and promote your performance. Smartphones have become indispensable tools for a wide variety of work and personal tasks. However, many people admit that mobile devices have also grown into our ultimate distractions, with an endless stream of notifications, an overwhelming number of icons on the screen, and plenty of apps vying for our attention. The issue of maintaining the ‘life-phone’ balance is getting evergreen, but potential controversy can be eliminated – with a responsible and mindful approach. It applies to both quantity and quality aspects, meaning you cut back on screen time when it’s too much, prioritize functional phone usage depending on your professional and leisure needs, and optimize your mobile experience for convenience and efficiency by introducing some screen modifications. As the first two are pretty straightforward, let’s touch upon the third facet more closely and discuss four concentration-promoting and productivity-boosting screen customization strategies that can help you alleviate distractions, stay more focused on your daily to-dos, and reap some extra motivation when using your iPhone. Declutter and Organize Your Screen Space Declutter and Organize Your Screen Space Like your living space, your digital space should be kept in order. Messy environments are shown to trigger stress and induce disorientation and procrastination, thus degrading focus and productivity. Flip through your screen pages indicating the apps you haven’t been using for a couple of months now, and delete them. The accumulation of irrelevant icons provokes digital noise and annoyance, occupying and cluttering your screen space and distracting your eyes from the ones you really need. The next step is organizing your space to address your functional necessities. You can use a ready-to-go home screen pack template for the structure, and fill it out with widgets and icons in your preferred sequence. These visual arrangements will help you eliminate the risk of randomness while browsing your phone, saving time and promoting mental focus. Overall, there are many auxiliary apps available to pick some drafts and ideas. For instance, the MyScreen app provides the whole package of the latest and most creative screen customization features, including themes, wallpapers, widgets, icon packs, keyboards, and more. MyScreen Determine Essential Work and Lifestyle Tools and Set Priorities Determine Essential Work and Lifestyle Tools and Set Priorities Highlighting the things you regularly need for work or leisure activities makes them quickly accessible, promoting concentration on your intentions and speeding up the outcomes. If your main goal is enhancing your screen time for work, prioritize the tools that you actually use for work, think documents, messengers, scanning apps, or other utilities. If your smartphone usage is more lifestyle, ensure easy reach for the stuff you engage with most frequently. You can also add widgets for the things you want to keep at your fingertips or at the top of your mind. For example, you can track the UV index, weather forecast, stock exchange, calendar events, steps count, shopping lists, and more besides standard date and time. Social media icon placement requires special attention as these are the most time-consuming and interrupting apps of all. Consider placing them on the second or third pages of your screen so they don’t spot your eye each time you unlock your phone. You can go further and switch off notifications to avoid random alerts popping up on the screen. These ‘out of sight, out of mind’ tweaks will help you alleviate the presence of social media in your daily life and stay focused on what you are up to. Display Personally Beneficial Content Display Personally Beneficial Content Since your phone screen is something you observe repeatedly during the day, it’s a no-brainer to fill it with content that resonates with your objectives and facilitates your goals. Once the screen space is cleaned and organized, it’s time to review what else can be added to promote your mindfulness and motivation. For example, you can introduce a widget listing your intentions for the day or displaying your progress toward your daily health goals, such as 10K or water intake. Another advantageous tweak is setting the wallpaper, which addresses you personally and appeals to your state of mind. Even with a brief and unintentional eye contact, what we see launches a chain of cognitive and psycho-emotional reactions in the brain. Naturally, as long as you bring a sense of purpose to the table, you can turn your phone screen into a stress reliever, mood booster, source of motivation, or whatever else you’re looking for. It may sound too good to be true, but it’s science-backed that seeing calming nature scenery – even on your phone screen – promotes stress relief and relaxation, funny pictures make you smile, and positive affirmations keep you encouraged and uplifted. MyScreen offers a vast, constantly updating catalog of live and still wallpapers if you need to pick some fresh ideas that capture your eye. MyScreen To enhance the effect, consider dividing the screen area between functional and inspirational constituents. Place the icons above, below, or around the central theme of your wallpaper so they don’t overlap, and you can still see the purposeful part of the picture without barriers. Optimize Color Schemes and Design Elements Optimize Color Schemes and Design Elements The colors and patterns we see can subconsciously impact our mental and emotional states. While your favorite ones are the clear winners, it’s also worth taking into account some common associations. Darker colors can induce gloominess and sadness, while brighter and lighter colors foster happiness and optimism. Calm pastel colors promote serenity and focus, and warm neutrals are comforting and uplifting. Besides, the color choice should not be generalized, as each color has several shades that can induce either positive, neutral, or negative responses in you. Overstimulating bold patterns and combinations of colors that clash with each other can provoke mental discomfort, overload your eyes and brain, cause disturbance and anxiety, disrupt concentration, and drain your productivity without you even realizing it. And vice versa, when all design elements are tuned with one another, your screen will feel harmonious and pleasing, complementing your productive mode. Takeaway Takeaway As the digital environment we inhabit via our phones is where we spend quite a bit of time daily, its design should naturally be approached as a matter of personal requirements and preferences. Unpersonalized and messy screens can provoke a negatively persuaded, disorienting experience and blur focus and productivity. In contrast, an organized, visually appealing screen with clear accents aligned with your needs will support your mental sharpness and promote your performance.

4 iPhone Screen Modification Strategies to Improve Focus and Productivity

ফোকাস এবং উত্পাদনশীলতা উন্নত করার জন্য 4 আইফোন স্ক্রীন পরিবর্তনের কৌশল

4 iPhone-Bildschirmmodifikationsstrategien zur Verbesserung von Fokus und Produktivität

4 estrategias de modificación de la pantalla del iPhone para mejorar el enfoque y la productividad

4 stratégies de modification de l'écran de l'iPhone pour améliorer la concentration et la productivité

फोकस और उत्पादकता में सुधार के लिए 4 iPhone स्क्रीन संशोधन रणनीतियाँ

集中力と生産性を向上させるための 4 つの iPhone 画面変更戦略

집중력과 생산성을 향상시키는 4가지 iPhone 화면 수정 전략

4 estratégias de modificação da tela do iPhone para melhorar o foco e a produtividade

4 стратегии модификации экрана iPhone для улучшения концентрации внимания и производительности

Odaklanmayı ve Üretkenliği Artırmak için 4 iPhone Ekran Değiştirme Stratejisi

4 chiến lược sửa đổi màn hình iPhone để cải thiện sự tập trung và năng suất

提高注意力和工作效率的 4 个 iPhone 屏幕修改策略

DOE v. Github (original complaint) Court Filing, retrieved on November 3, 2022 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 14 of 37. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here VII. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Introduction 43. This class action against Defendants concerns an OpenAI product called Codex and a GitHub product called Copilot. 44. OpenAI began development of Codex sometime after OpenAI was founded in December 2015 and released Codex on a limited basis in August 2021. 45. GitHub began development of Copilot sometime in 2019, released it on a limited basis in June 2021, and released it as a paid subscription service in June 2022. 46. Codex and Copilot are assistive AI-based systems offered to software programmers. These AI systems are each trained on a large corpus of publicly accessible software code and other materials, including all the Licensed Materials. Defendants describe these products as making coding easier by accepting a code “prompt” from a programmer and emitting a possible completion of that code, which is referred to herein as Output, as set forth above. Defendants claim Codex and Copilot do not retain copies of the materials they are trained on. In practice, however, the Output is often a near-identical reproduction of code from the training data. 47. Codex and Copilot are related. Copilot is a joint venture between GitHub and OpenAI. Codex is a standalone product released by OpenAI that also “powers GitHub Copilot, which [OpenAI] built and launched in partnership with GitHub.”[5]“GitHub Copilot uses the OpenAI Codex to suggest code and entire functions in real-time, right from your editor.”[6] The version of Codex used to power Copilot is modified from OpenAI’s standalone version. Defendants have kept secret the details of Codex’s modifications and its integration into or interaction with Copilot. [5] See . https://openai.com/blog/openai-codex/ [6] See . https://github.com/features/copilot/ 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 September 5, 2023, from Storage.Courtlistener 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. 3:22-cv-06823-KAW

OpenAI Has Kept Secret the Details of Codex's Modifications and Integrations With Copilot

It's currently 14:30, February 28th, 2023, while I'm writing this update to the challenge. I'm going to make it short. We didn't make it. We actually didn't even get anywhere close to making it. It was a complete failure of a challenge. Okay, okay, that's properly a bit too gloomy. It was kind of expected that we wouldn't make any money after the month was over. But what we didn't receive in terms of monetary gains we got in (quoting the great (scam) entrepreneur Tai Lopez) knowledge. We also decided to make some adjustments to the challenge to keep it going, let's break it down. What Went Wrong First thing first, if you attempt to do this challenge, don't select the shortest month of the year to do a 1 Month 1 Dollar challenge. That's just shooting yourself in the foot. Additionally, don't pick the same month when you've planned holidays with your girlfriend, thinking you can just do a little bit of work. Especially, don't plan two holidays in the shortest month of the year for this challenge. I'm only half joking here, but seriously, we didn't give this challenge the focus and energy it required. We should have picked another month when we both could focus, at least 40 hours a week fully on the project. Next up, and this is the biggest one, we started outreach too late. We did get some early promising results by doing (personalized) outreach on LinkedIn. I think we might have reached out to around 50 people in total which resulted in ~8 getting back to us, and out of those ~8 people, 1 wanted to jump on a call with us, showing some interest in the product. The excitement quickly died down when we discovered that the person didn't really get our value proposition. Both good and bad, we have new information we can react to, and it helps point us in the right direction. However, we didn't get any new calls or follow-ups after this. It could be due to people just being busy but I would guess more that we didn't pursue this aggressively enough. What Did We Learn There is something about learning a new skill where it only really manifests itself in your mind when you try to actually do that skill. Most of this advice is already flooded on the internet, in start-up/bootstrapping forums, etc. But, basically, it can be boiled down to: Get a landing page out there quickly | Forces you to describe your product and makes it more concrete.


Write down your assumptions from the beginning | Continuously test and adjust them to new information.


Reach out to people even when you have a half-baked notion of your product. The first two points are pretty self-explanatory; if you're not sure what is meant by point 2, check out the original post. I do think the third point is the main learning from this challenge. You got to focus on what actually moves the needle and pushes you towards a profitable product, which means getting people to give you money. It's extremely comfortable to just build build build (especially as software engineers) while having wet dreams about all the monthly reoccurring revenue you're going to receive in the end. But that is, on average, not really a productive strategy even though it might feel like it. Sure, all your assumptions could be spot on and your big-bang release is going to be a raving success. Most are just not. So, speak to more people, look up people in relevant positions/groups on LinkedIn, find people following your competitors on Twitter, scour those Facebook groups, and write to people. Also, make sure to read The Mom Test. A Blank Piece of Paper Was it all bad and with no successful experiences? Not at all, one process that really helped us kick this off was the habit of continuously writing down ideas each day. There is something strange about the blank page effect; it can stare about at you for hours on end, almost paralyzing your ability to get started. Should I start with X? Should I include Y? But what about that incredibly important Z? It's seriously frustrating, and it was something that both Rasmus and I were feeling a bit anxious about before starting the project. For the past ~2 months, we have been meeting up once a week to discuss ideas, problems, businesses, and everything under the sun related to bootstrapping companies. I myself had been trying to (and somewhat succeeding) write down 10 ideas a day, and you quickly come to realize: ideas are not that hard to get. It's definitely a muscle that can be trained with consistency just like, well, pretty much anything. Most of that comes out as dog shit, like my brilliant idea of uber but for walking dogs - list where you want to go, and a dog will walk there with you, not exactly a Zero to One idea. It did give us a list of 200+ ideas to start from, which means, 200+ ideas that can be combined, modified, thrown away, or lead you down new paths to even better ideas. The tiniest bit of exploration sparked new ideas which led us to ask new questions that we hadn't considered before. You do see this a lot on forums like indiehackers where people, on a quite consistent basis, will be asking how people generate ideas. And every time, you will see the same (more or less) generic advice: solve your own problems
look for problems at work/with clients or what issues are your friends having These never worked well for me, mainly because I forgot to actually think about these things while doing my work. So, it felt like nothing was actually occurring to me, and I was left with no viable product ideas, and therefore, didn't really build anything. Making a habit out of writing down 10 ideas a day did work, however, so if you're struggling with this give it a try. You'll soon start thinking about potential products consistently. Change of Direction Is it over? No, but we're making some adjustments. It will no longer be a 1 Month 1 Dollar challenge but instead: 1 Year 1 Noodle. This is basically just to say that the challenge will continue in the sense that we will keep trying to get our hands on that sweet magical internet money. And then post an update once in a while. We'll continue working on the product for the foreseeable future until we either get some traction or kill it; it's definitely too early to kill it. If you want to check it out, it can be found here databayz. Outside of the challenge, I have also been working on another project to help do customer discovery on Reddit: This Week On Reddit. The process for this is going to be roughly the same as described above, outreach outreach outreach. But more on that in a later post. It's currently 14:30, February 28th, 2023, while I'm writing this update to the challenge . I'm going to make it short. We didn't make it. We actually didn't even get anywhere close to making it. It was a complete failure of a challenge. challenge Okay, okay, that's properly a bit too gloomy. It was kind of expected that we wouldn't make any money after the month was over. But what we didn't receive in terms of monetary gains we got in (quoting the great (scam) entrepreneur Tai Lopez) knowledge . We also decided to make some adjustments to the challenge to keep it going, let's break it down. knowledge knowledge What Went Wrong First thing first, if you attempt to do this challenge, don't select the shortest month of the year to do a 1 Month 1 Dollar challenge. That's just shooting yourself in the foot. Additionally, don't pick the same month when you've planned holidays with your girlfriend, thinking you can just do a little bit of work. Especially, don't plan two holidays in the shortest month of the year for this challenge. two I'm only half joking here, but seriously, we didn't give this challenge the focus and energy it required. We should have picked another month when we both could focus, at least 40 hours a week fully on the project. Next up, and this is the biggest one, we started outreach too late. We did get some early promising results by doing (personalized) outreach on LinkedIn. I think we might have reached out to around 50 people in total which resulted in ~8 getting back to us, and out of those ~8 people, 1 wanted to jump on a call with us, showing some interest in the product. The excitement quickly died down when we discovered that the person didn't really get our value proposition. Both good and bad, we have new information we can react to, and it helps point us in the right direction. However, we didn't get any new calls or follow-ups after this. It could be due to people just being busy but I would guess more that we didn't pursue this aggressively enough. What Did We Learn There is something about learning a new skill where it only really manifests itself in your mind when you try to actually do that skill. Most of this advice is already flooded on the internet, in start-up/bootstrapping forums, etc. But, basically, it can be boiled down to: Get a landing page out there quickly | Forces you to describe your product and makes it more concrete. Write down your assumptions from the beginning | Continuously test and adjust them to new information. Reach out to people even when you have a half-baked notion of your product. Get a landing page out there quickly | Forces you to describe your product and makes it more concrete. Get a landing page out there quickly | Forces you to describe your product and makes it more concrete. Write down your assumptions from the beginning | Continuously test and adjust them to new information. Write down your assumptions from the beginning | Continuously test and adjust them to new information. Reach out to people even when you have a half-baked notion of your product. Reach out to people even when you have a half-baked notion of your product. The first two points are pretty self-explanatory; if you're not sure what is meant by point 2, check out the original post . I do think the third point is the main learning from this challenge. You got to focus on what actually moves the needle and pushes you towards a profitable product, which means getting people to give you money. original post It's extremely comfortable to just build build build (especially as software engineers) while having wet dreams about all the monthly reoccurring revenue you're going to receive in the end. But that is, on average, not really a productive strategy even though it might feel like it. Sure, all your assumptions could be spot on and your big-bang release is going to be a raving success. Most are just not. So, speak to more people, look up people in relevant positions/groups on LinkedIn, find people following your competitors on Twitter, scour those Facebook groups, and write to people. Also, make sure to read The Mom Test . The Mom Test A Blank Piece of Paper Was it all bad and with no successful experiences? Not at all, one process that really helped us kick this off was the habit of continuously writing down ideas each day. There is something strange about the blank page effect; it can stare about at you for hours on end, almost paralyzing your ability to get started. Should I start with X? Should I include Y? But what about that incredibly important Z? It's seriously frustrating, and it was something that both Rasmus and I were feeling a bit anxious about before starting the project. For the past ~2 months, we have been meeting up once a week to discuss ideas, problems, businesses, and everything under the sun related to bootstrapping companies. I myself had been trying to (and somewhat succeeding) write down 10 ideas a day, and you quickly come to realize: ideas are not that hard to get. It's definitely a muscle that can be trained with consistency just like, well, pretty much anything. Most of that comes out as dog shit, like my brilliant idea of uber but for walking dogs - list where you want to go, and a dog will walk there with you , not exactly a Zero to One idea. uber but for walking dogs - list where you want to go, and a dog will walk there with you It did give us a list of 200+ ideas to start from, which means, 200+ ideas that can be combined, modified, thrown away, or lead you down new paths to even better ideas. The tiniest bit of exploration sparked new ideas which led us to ask new questions that we hadn't considered before. You do see this a lot on forums like indiehackers where people, on a quite consistent basis, will be asking how people generate ideas. And every time, you will see the same (more or less) generic advice: indiehackers solve your own problems look for problems at work/with clients or what issues are your friends having solve your own problems look for problems at work/with clients or what issues are your friends having These never worked well for me, mainly because I forgot to actually think about these things while doing my work. So, it felt like nothing was actually occurring to me, and I was left with no viable product ideas, and therefore, didn't really build anything. Making a habit out of writing down 10 ideas a day did work, however, so if you're struggling with this give it a try. You'll soon start thinking about potential products consistently. Change of Direction Is it over? No, but we're making some adjustments. It will no longer be a 1 Month 1 Dollar challenge but instead: 1 Year 1 Noodle . Year 1 Noodle This is basically just to say that the challenge will continue in the sense that we will keep trying to get our hands on that sweet magical internet money. And then post an update once in a while. We'll continue working on the product for the foreseeable future until we either get some traction or kill it; it's definitely too early to kill it. If you want to check it out, it can be found here databayz . databayz Outside of the challenge, I have also been working on another project to help do customer discovery on Reddit: This Week On Reddit . The process for this is going to be roughly the same as described above, outreach outreach outreach. But more on that in a later post. This Week On Reddit

One Month One Dollar - Part 2: What Went Wrong

Recollections of My Life: Part 3

The Crypto Lobby Seeks to Influence US Politics: A Peek at Their Smear Campaign and False Narrative

Solve for the Edges and Get The Middle for Free: Innovating for Inclusivity 

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

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 36 of 42. 34. Converted Code2Flow source code flowchart (Reliance Document) {ID_000554} / {L3/326/1} 61. This is the second document which relates to the Bitcoin Source Code. The document is described by Dr Wright as maps of the Bitcoin Source Code. The document contains a date on its face of 9 June 2008, which is before the release of the Bitcoin White Paper or the Bitcoin Software by Satoshi Nakamoto. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 662. The document is a monochrome (pure black and white) picture file, in a format and encoding consistent with a fax transmission or low-quality scan of a physical document. However, the document has been electronically created by conversion from a PDF. [PM10 [5-9]]. 663. {ID_000554} has its origin in a PDF document, {ID_000375}. [PM10 [10-21]]. 664. The document has been backdated. [PM10 [74]]. 665. ID_00375, (the original document from which {ID_000554} was created), reveals that the specific parts of the text required to support Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi (title and year of creation) are encoded within the PDF metadata differently to the other parts of the text (page number, day, and month), consistent with having been added at a different time by different means [PM10 [24-31]]. This indication of tampering has been removed from Dr Wright’s Reliance Document {ID_000554} by the process of conversion to a low-quality picture file. 666. The internal, raw metadata content of {ID_000375} contains embedded fonts bearing copyright statements dating them to 2015 or later. [PM10 [34]]. 667. The internal metadata of {ID_000375} contains hidden embedded metadata streams indicating that the original title of the file was “code2flow – online interactive code to flowchart converter” which was edited to read “bitcoin main.h”. [PM10 [36, 41]]. 668. The online Code2Flow software used to create these flowcharts did not exist in 2008 but was created at some time after 2012. [PM10 [42-47]]. 669. The PDF document {ID_000375} (the origin document for {ID_000554}) was created with XMP Core software which did not exist in 2008, and which dates the document to February 2016 or later. [PM10 [39]]. 670. {ID_000375} (the origin document for {ID_000554}) was created with a PDF Producer software “Acrobat Distiller 15.0 for Windows” which did not exist in 2008 but which date to November 2015 or later. [PM10 [48-54]]. 671. The above indications of tampering were removed from Dr Wright’s Reliance Document ID_00554 by means of converting it to a low-quality picture file. 672. The content of the manipulation and the origination of the timestamps in question is consistent with the use of clock manipulation. [PM10 [71-74]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 673. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. a map of the Bitcoin Source Code supposedly prepared in June 2008 and in the possession of Dr Wright), contrary to fact. 674. Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 675. Dr Wright has chosen to rely in these proceedings on this document, which is stripped of relevant metadata by reason of its creation process. Dr Wright has chosen not to rely on the equivalent PDF digital document which is the apparent predecessor, which contains clearer details and which contains both relevant metadata and reveals indicia of tampering. 676. {ID_000554}, Dr Wright’s Reliance Document, contains no legible text or colour, and is blurred by conversion, rendering it impossible to relate to the underlying PDF by text searching or other means other than by visual comparison and subsequent corroboration. [PM10 [10-13]]. 677. Dr Wright (craig.wright) is recorded as the author in the metadata of the document from which {ID_000554} was created. 678. Although other documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure bear similar hallmarks to {ID_000554} (including {ID_000553}, another Reliance Document), Dr Wright has not disclosed their equivalent underlying PDFs. 679. In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 680. Despite this document being one of Dr Wright’s primary reliance documents, he stated in Appendix B to Wright11 that he could not recall how it was created or even whether “this is my original document or something other people have used.” He sought to explain away the findings summarised above by denying that the PDF document {ID_000375} was the source for this document {ID_000554}. He claimed that the PDF document {ID_000375} had been created after 2012/13 by unidentified “employees of DeMorgan Ltd”, and that the two documents were thus unrelated. See {CSW/2/55}. He repeated this explanation in his oral evidence: {Day4/31:11} to {Day4/37:14}. 681. Dr Wright sought to explain the finding that the PDF document {ID_000375} had internal raw metadata indicating that its previous title had been the standard template title for a document created with a code2flow online conversion tool created in 2012. As well as claiming that that document was not the source of {ID_000554}, he also suggested that previous tools existed which he could have used to create that document in its current form in 2008. See: {Day4/41:18} to {Day4/42:12}. 682. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 682.1. Dr Wright’s attempt to deny that the PDF document {ID_000375} is the source for the TIFF document {ID_000554} is implausible. It is obvious from visual comparison of the two documents that, although the latter is less legible, both depict an absolutely identical code structure, a point which Dr Wright was compelled to admit in his oral evidence {Day4/34:13}. In addition, both have the same header (BitCoin main.h) and the same footer (1 of 1 // 9/06/2008 11:24). Furthermore, there is no other document in the disclosure which could qualify as a source for the TIFF document {ID_000554}. 682.2. Dr Wright has been driven by the forensic findings to accept that {ID_000375} was created years after 2008, despite that document (in his disclosure) having a face date of 2008. He has sought to distance the two documents from each other (despite all their similarities) for the obvious purpose of avoiding the natural conclusion that {ID_000554} was created from {ID_000375} years after 2008. 682.3. Dr Wright’s explanation does not account for the signs of backdating of the source document, {ID_000375}, which are set out in PM10 [22-41 {H/63/9}, including (i) the document title and footer date having the year (08) being encoded differently from the other parts of the footer (indicating manipulation); and (ii) the internal created and modified metadata indicating creation of the document in 2008 (despite it now being common ground that the document was created years later). If this document was simply created by DeMorgan employees some time after 2015, and there was no intention to create a backdated forgery, it is impossible to see why these findings would appear. 682.4. Dr Wright has provided no documentary or witness evidence to back up his account that DeMorgan employees created the PDF document {ID_000375}. If he really can remember that that document was created for a distinct purpose by DeMorgan employees, it is surprising that he cannot identify (still less call as a witness) the person who supposedly created it. 682.5. Dr Wright had previously given an account of the creation of this document in Chain of Custody information which Mr Madden conclusively debunked in PM43 [69-74 {H/219/28}. (d) Conclusion 683. I found COPA’s arguments to be entirely convincing. This was another clumsy forgery by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

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

COPA Accuses Craig Wright of Manipulating Bitcoin Flowchart Documents

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 35 of 42. 33. C++ Code {ID_004712} {PTR-F/69/1} and {ID_004713} {PTR-F/70/1} 648. In this and the following two sections, I turn to consider documents which concern the Bitcoin Source Code. The two documents purport to be C++ source code, presented as code files for models of Bitcoin, as if Dr Wright had in October 2007 already been working on such code using C++ (the same coding language as used by Satoshi Nakamoto). (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 649. These documents are among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 650.1. They call on the use of the libraries “<chrono>”, <thread>” and “<random”. These libraries are part of the C++11 standard, first released in 2011. [Stroustrup 1 [4] C/23/1] 650.2. <chrono>was not first proposed until 11 June 2008. [Hinnant1 [4] C/18/1] 650.3. The first discussion of what became <chrono> was not published until 19 January 2008, and was not at that time called <chrono>. [Hinnant1 [5] C/18/2] 650.4. Within <chrono>, these documents call for the use of the function “sleep_for”. By 19 January 2008, the function was referred to as ‘sleep’ (not yet ‘sleep_for’). [Hinnant1 [5] C/18/2] 650.5. By that time, neither <chrono> nor “sleep_for” yet existed, even on the personal computer of its developer. [Hinnant1 [5] C/18/2] 651. The documents were sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. These documents were added by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 652. The effect of the tampering is to make the documents appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 653. The further effect of the tampering is to lead to source code files being presented as if they are relevant to the case, contrary to fact. This includes human-readable comments within the source code such as “// Calculate Total Proof of Work”. 654. These documents were added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 655. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to these documents: 655.1. Both are said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because they are “C++ code files code for a simplified model of Bitcoin to evaluate transaction processing, cryptographic security, and consensus mechanisms. This is analysed and described in {ID_004710}, which is a LaTeX file that codes for a paper setting out a “Game Theoretical Analysis of Node Strategies in a Decentralised System”” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/6)]. 655.2. They are said to be one of Dr Wright’s “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper" [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/4] 656. The documents were not disclosed at the proper time. They were disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 657. The documents were sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. These documents were added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 658. Dr Wright claimed that this was a simplified model of Bitcoin in C++ code. It contains the Chrono time utility that was first standardised in 2011. Dr Wright said that he produced his own time library from Project Chrono, a physics engine first developed in 1998. He said that he had developed C++ libraries and commercially produced these when he was running Integrys in Australia. His account was that he used a modified version of the Project Chrono physics engine (which simulates movements of cars etc.) because he was looking at movements from one node to another. He said that he also used the “sleep_for” syntax in his code. He asserted that the reference to “random” in his code was explained by him creating random number generators since the 1980s including for a large number of online gambling sites: Wright11 {CSW/1/87} {Day5/113:24} and following. 659. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 659.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 659.2. It was not possible to use and “sleep_for” in C++ code in October 2007 prior to its public release in 2011. Whilst an earlier version of what became was mentioned publicly on 19 January 2008, the word “chrono” was not used: Hinnant{C/18/1}. 659.3. Project Chrono is a physics simulation library. The only thing that it shares with the Chrono library is the name. Mr Hinnant’s evidence was that it would take a huge amount of work to turn Project Chrono into Chrono and that it would be far quicker to build Chrono (as a time library) from scratch. He added that “the mere fact that somebody says that they derived a date time library from a physics library indicates to me that they don’t have the technical expertise to even write Chrono from scratch” because it would actually take more work to write it from a physics library than from scratch: {Day14/43:2}. 659.4. Dr Wright does not have a good understanding of C++ code, as was clear from his inability to understand what an unsigned integer is: {Day8/143:4} and following. 659.5. There is no evidence that he, or any company associated with him, has sold commercial C++ packages. 659.6. Dr Wright’s story that he used a modified physics engine to consider movements inside a computer network from one node to another is not only a fiction, but it also reveals that he simply does not understand the difference between modelling of real-world movements affected by gravity and the movements of signals in a computing network. 659.7. His excuse means that even if he did all of the above, he still managed to land on the exact nomenclature and spacing used in Chrono, which would not be developed for another four years, as set out in Mr Hinnant’s evidence (references above). 659.8. Even if Dr Wright had created his own version of a personalised Chrono library, as this was not standardised it would be regarded as “undefined behaviour” by the compiler, the effect of that being that the compiler may or may not do what the programmer intends, as “literally anything can happen when the compiler comes upon undefined behaviour”: {Day14/44:12}. 659.9. His boasts of creating random number generators for a host of online gambling sites are not backed up by any evidence, and furthermore, the evidence that there is of his work for these sites is that he was involved in IT security, not programming on the gaming side of things. 659.10. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_004712 and ID_004713 were manipulated: {Q/6/5}. (d) Conclusion 660. In addition to COPA’s submissions set out above, I refer also to the following sections in the main Judgment, [258]-[263], [637]-[646] and [647]-[650], all of which demonstrate very clearly, in my judgment, that these two documents were forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

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

C++ Code Documents in Bitcoin Case Deemed Forgery

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 33 of 42. 31. “Economic Security.doc” (Reliance Document) {ID_000258} / {L3/286/1} 597. The document purports to be work associated with the development of Bitcoin. It refers to “BitCoin” in the future tense and is dated 5 to 7 November 2008. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 598. The document has been backdated, with signs of apparently contradictory metadata. [PM29 [17-18]]. 599. The document is an altered version of a document actually published by Dr Wright in May 2019 (the “Economic Security Medium Article”). [PM29 [10-15]]. 600. From the Economic Security Medium Article to ID_00258, the tense has been changed from past to future, to give the document the appearance of predating Bitcoin, contrary to fact. [PM29 [14-15]]. 601. From the Economic Security Medium Article to {ID_000258}, the capitalisation of Bitcoin has been adapted to “BitCoin” (which would more closely align to Dr Wright’s account of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto and his use of terminology). [PM29 [15]]. 602. The document contains hidden embedded text of previous edits. The hidden embedded text is adapted from the Economic Security Medium Article, and text sections are phrased in the present tense (as is the Economic Security Medium Article). The hidden embedded text does not appear on the face of the document. [PM29 [15]]. 603. The Economic Security Medium Article has not been disclosed by Dr Wright. Further, no corresponding draft document or donor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM29 [16]]. 604. The internal metadata records an anomalous edit time in excess of 57 days, despite a very short period between file created and last modified date, indicative of the use of clock manipulation techniques (1 day 19hrs 14 mins). [PM29 [5]]. 605. The period of editing this document overlaps with a number of other documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure. [PM24 [33-35]]. 606. The document was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. The email contains several manipulated documents purported to be in the custody of Lynn Wright. The metadata of that zip file is also irregular. [{ID_003934}, PM29 [2]; PM26, [25-38]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 607. Dr Wright has positively asserted that {ID_000258} is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 608. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done privately by him and looking ahead to Bitcoin), contrary to fact. 609. The document is written in the first person from the perspective of Dr Wright. 610. Dr Wright is listed as the original author in the internal metadata of the file. 611. The Economic Security Medium Article was posted by Dr Wright on his own account on the website Medium.com. 612. Although the document metadata present Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright, and a copy sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email long after they were separated, contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright relies. The metadata of that zip file itself are also irregular. [{ID_003934}, PM29 [2], PM26 [25-38]]. 613. Dr Wright shared a document with identical content on social media on 16 January 2020, contemporaneously with the aforesaid email to Lynn Wright. Upon request in these proceedings, Dr Wright has repeatedly declined to disclose a copy of his posts to social media accounts. Since the date of the request, Dr Wright has claimed to have lost access to the relevant social media account. 614. In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence. 615. Dr Wright has not disclosed associated relevant documents. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 616. In Wright11, Appendix B, Dr Wright sought to explain away the presence of the other version of the document in its redundant space by saying that his former wife (Lynn Wright) edited the document and “would have taken out my rants”. He tried to explain the fact that the version in the redundant space spoke of Bitcoin as a system already in operation, while the face text of the document spoke of it as a system yet to take effect, by saying that there were debates about the operation of the system even before it came into effect: {CSW/2/30}, at [8.6 to 8.7]. He sought to explain away the fact that the remnant text matched parts of his 2019 article by saying that that article was not a final product: {CSW/2/31, [8.8]}. 617. In oral evidence, when pressed on the fact that the remnant text was plainly written after Bitcoin had come into operation as a system, Dr Wright changed his story again, claiming that the document was or may have been subject to editing not only by Lynn Wright but also by one or more unidentified members of staff: {Day3/29:22} to {Day3/30:14}. 618. Then Dr Wright sought to explain away the deleted, hidden/embedded references in this document (from 2008) to contemporaneous attacks on Bitcoin by his assertion that Bitcoin was being criticised even before it became operational in 2009 (Day3/31/3 to Day3/32/5}. 619. Dr Wright sought to explain away the fact that the edit time was far longer than the period between the created and last saved dates by claiming that it resulted from a combination of the use of Citrix and copying of documents using the X-copy command: {Day3/26:8- 11}. 620. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 620.1. Dr Wright’s account is that (i) in 2008, before the Bitcoin code had even been released, he wrote a bizarre document which referred to and described Bitcoin as a system already in operation (as reflected by the remnant text); (ii) his wife and possibly some employees edited the document one or more times to produce a version which spoke of Bitcoin as a system yet to take effect (as reflected by the face value text); and (iii) 11 years later, in 2019, he modified the text again to bring it closer to the original and issued the resulting text as the Medium article. This is wildly implausible. 620.2. Dr Wright’s account of his wife removing “rants” from the document is plainly wrong. If one compares the face text, redundant draft and Medium article text (as shown against each other in Exhibit PM29.2 {H/1281/}), it can be seen that the changes were not to remove “rants” but to change the document from speaking about Bitcoin in the present tense to speaking of it in the future tense. 620.3. For Dr Wright’s account, Lynn Wright would need to have been very familiar with his Bitcoin project. However, she told the Court in the Kleiman proceedings that Dr Wright had never mentioned Bitcoin to her: see {L16/116/74}. Dr Wright sought to answer this point by saying that she had been giving evidence while medically unfit, and he even claimed that she had not been asked about her medical fitness {Day2/97:15} to {Day2/98:4}. However, that was false: at the start of her deposition evidence in the Kleiman proceedings, Lynn Wright was asked about her medical fitness and said that she was fit to give evidence: {L16/116/8}. 620.4. Dr Wright’s account also relies upon his explanation of the editing time anomaly, which is at odds with the only independent expert evidence. It should be stressed that the anomaly in this instance is not merely a long edit time (which might be explained by a Citrix session being left open) but an edit time longer than the difference between created and last saved times, which on the expert evidence is only explained by backdating: PM29 [7] {H/126/4}. 620.5. As for the explanation that Bitcoin was being criticised even before the system was launched in 2009, no documents were identified to support this argument. Furthermore, it is an explanation which is wholly unconvincing in the light of Mr Madden’s detailed analysis. (d) Conclusion 621. Once again, I found Mr Madden’s analysis to be wholly convincing and Dr Wright’s explanations to be utterly unconvincing. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 33 of 42. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 33 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 31. “Economic Security.doc” (Reliance Document) {ID_000258} / {L3/286/1} 597. The document purports to be work associated with the development of Bitcoin. It refers to “BitCoin” in the future tense and is dated 5 to 7 November 2008. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 598. The document has been backdated, with signs of apparently contradictory metadata. [PM29 [17-18]]. 599. The document is an altered version of a document actually published by Dr Wright in May 2019 (the “Economic Security Medium Article”). [PM29 [10-15]]. 600. From the Economic Security Medium Article to ID_00258, the tense has been changed from past to future, to give the document the appearance of predating Bitcoin, contrary to fact. [PM29 [14-15]]. 601. From the Economic Security Medium Article to {ID_000258}, the capitalisation of Bitcoin has been adapted to “BitCoin” (which would more closely align to Dr Wright’s account of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto and his use of terminology). [PM29 [15]]. 602. The document contains hidden embedded text of previous edits. The hidden embedded text is adapted from the Economic Security Medium Article, and text sections are phrased in the present tense (as is the Economic Security Medium Article). The hidden embedded text does not appear on the face of the document. [PM29 [15]]. 603. The Economic Security Medium Article has not been disclosed by Dr Wright. Further, no corresponding draft document or donor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM29 [16]]. 604. The internal metadata records an anomalous edit time in excess of 57 days, despite a very short period between file created and last modified date, indicative of the use of clock manipulation techniques (1 day 19hrs 14 mins). [PM29 [5]]. 605. The period of editing this document overlaps with a number of other documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure. [PM24 [33-35]]. 606. The document was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. The email contains several manipulated documents purported to be in the custody of Lynn Wright. The metadata of that zip file is also irregular. [{ID_003934}, PM29 [2]; PM26, [25-38]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 607. Dr Wright has positively asserted that {ID_000258} is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 608. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done privately by him and looking ahead to Bitcoin), contrary to fact. 609. The document is written in the first person from the perspective of Dr Wright. 610. Dr Wright is listed as the original author in the internal metadata of the file. 611. The Economic Security Medium Article was posted by Dr Wright on his own account on the website Medium.com. 612. Although the document metadata present Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright, and a copy sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email long after they were separated, contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright relies. The metadata of that zip file itself are also irregular. [{ID_003934}, PM29 [2], PM26 [25-38]]. 613. Dr Wright shared a document with identical content on social media on 16 January 2020, contemporaneously with the aforesaid email to Lynn Wright. Upon request in these proceedings, Dr Wright has repeatedly declined to disclose a copy of his posts to social media accounts. Since the date of the request, Dr Wright has claimed to have lost access to the relevant social media account. 614. In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence. 615. Dr Wright has not disclosed associated relevant documents. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 616. In Wright11, Appendix B, Dr Wright sought to explain away the presence of the other version of the document in its redundant space by saying that his former wife (Lynn Wright) edited the document and “would have taken out my rants”. He tried to explain the fact that the version in the redundant space spoke of Bitcoin as a system already in operation, while the face text of the document spoke of it as a system yet to take effect, by saying that there were debates about the operation of the system even before it came into effect: {CSW/2/30}, at [8.6 to 8.7]. He sought to explain away the fact that the remnant text matched parts of his 2019 article by saying that that article was not a final product: {CSW/2/31, [8.8]}. 617. In oral evidence, when pressed on the fact that the remnant text was plainly written after Bitcoin had come into operation as a system, Dr Wright changed his story again, claiming that the document was or may have been subject to editing not only by Lynn Wright but also by one or more unidentified members of staff: {Day3/29:22} to {Day3/30:14}. 618. Then Dr Wright sought to explain away the deleted, hidden/embedded references in this document (from 2008) to contemporaneous attacks on Bitcoin by his assertion that Bitcoin was being criticised even before it became operational in 2009 (Day3/31/3 to Day3/32/5}. 619. Dr Wright sought to explain away the fact that the edit time was far longer than the period between the created and last saved dates by claiming that it resulted from a combination of the use of Citrix and copying of documents using the X-copy command: {Day3/26:8- 11}. 620. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 620.1. Dr Wright’s account is that (i) in 2008, before the Bitcoin code had even been released, he wrote a bizarre document which referred to and described Bitcoin as a system already in operation (as reflected by the remnant text); (ii) his wife and possibly some employees edited the document one or more times to produce a version which spoke of Bitcoin as a system yet to take effect (as reflected by the face value text); and (iii) 11 years later, in 2019, he modified the text again to bring it closer to the original and issued the resulting text as the Medium article. This is wildly implausible. 620.2. Dr Wright’s account of his wife removing “rants” from the document is plainly wrong. If one compares the face text, redundant draft and Medium article text (as shown against each other in Exhibit PM29.2 {H/1281/}), it can be seen that the changes were not to remove “rants” but to change the document from speaking about Bitcoin in the present tense to speaking of it in the future tense. 620.3. For Dr Wright’s account, Lynn Wright would need to have been very familiar with his Bitcoin project. However, she told the Court in the Kleiman proceedings that Dr Wright had never mentioned Bitcoin to her: see {L16/116/74}. Dr Wright sought to answer this point by saying that she had been giving evidence while medically unfit, and he even claimed that she had not been asked about her medical fitness {Day2/97:15} to {Day2/98:4}. However, that was false: at the start of her deposition evidence in the Kleiman proceedings, Lynn Wright was asked about her medical fitness and said that she was fit to give evidence: {L16/116/8}. 620.4. Dr Wright’s account also relies upon his explanation of the editing time anomaly, which is at odds with the only independent expert evidence. It should be stressed that the anomaly in this instance is not merely a long edit time (which might be explained by a Citrix session being left open) but an edit time longer than the difference between created and last saved times, which on the expert evidence is only explained by backdating: PM29 [7] {H/126/4}. 620.5. As for the explanation that Bitcoin was being criticised even before the system was launched in 2009, no documents were identified to support this argument. Furthermore, it is an explanation which is wholly unconvincing in the light of Mr Madden’s detailed analysis. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 621. Once again, I found Mr Madden’s analysis to be wholly convincing and Dr Wright’s explanations to be utterly unconvincing. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

COPA Challenges Craig Wright's Claims with Evidence of Document Manipulation

Craig Wright's Bitcoin White Paper Document Questioned for Forgery

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

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

Craig Wright’s Bitcoin-Related Document Exposed as Fabricated

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 28 of 42. 26. The SSRN Submission (Particulars of Claim at [30]-[35] {A/2/10}) The Fourth Pleaded Example 489. On or about 21 August 2019, Dr Wright uploaded to the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) a document which he asserts to be the ‘final’ version of the Bitcoin White Paper, in which he is named as the author. The post claims that the document was written on 21 August 2008. Dr Wright posted two versions of what he claims to be his original version of the Bitcoin White Paper within SSRN. **(a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery** 490. The metadata of the actual Bitcoin White Paper has a creation date of 24 March 2009. The first version Dr Wright submitted to SSRN has discrepancies in the document properties. Examination of this first version reveals that its metadata was tampered with - supplemental metadata was added to this version to superficially indicate a creation date of 24 January 2008 and a “modified” date of 21 May 2008. This added metadata displays as the creation and modified date in the user interface of standard consumer software, i.e. the tampered dates are what would appear to a layperson upon cursory examination. However, a forensic examination of the metadata of this first version reveals another “creation date” entry embedded within the metadata, specifying a creation date that corresponds exactly to the creation date of the Bitcoin White Paper, specifically “/CreationDate (D:20090324113315-06:00)". 491. The metadata of this first version includes an entry indicating that the original creation date is 29 March 2009, which is at odds with the creation date of 24 January 2008 that shows up in other parts of the metadata. In the premises, it is averred that this first version posted to SSRN is actually a copied version of the Bitcoin White Paper with alterations to its metadata (at least that the dates of 24 January 2008 and 21 May 2008 were added to the genuine metadata of the Bitcoin White Paper) to make it appear that it was created in 2008. It is averred that the dates of 24 January 2008 and 21 May 2008 were added to the genuine metadata of the Bitcoin White Paper by Wright to support his attempt to claim that he had drafted the Bitcoin White Paper. 492. The second version that Dr Wright uploaded to SSRN, which is the version he has currently uploaded there, had further changes to the metadata compared to the first version. However, the original creation date of 24 March 2009 from the actual Bitcoin White Paper still exists within the second version’s metadata. COPA allege that Dr Wright again sought to manipulate the metadata a second time but failed to remove the original creation date. 493. The genuine metadata in the actual Bitcoin White Paper and metadata contained within the two versions posted on SSRN by Dr Wright all state the 24 March 2009 date as being the creation date, with the dates/times agreeing to the millisecond. (b) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 494. In his Defence, Dr Wright admits that the two versions of the Bitcoin White Paper which Dr Wright uploaded to SSRN were not created in 2008 or 2009, but in 2019. He claims that his purpose in uploading these versions was not to prove that he was the author of the Bitcoin White Paper but “to assert [his] authorship of the White Paper”: see Defence, [55-56] {A/3/16}. In his Defence, Dr Wright gives no explanation for the uploaded versions having metadata creation dates of 2008 and 2009 respectively. 495. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright repeats the account given in his Defence. However, he now adds the assertion that he prepared each document in LATEX and that he set the metadata in LATEX to refer to creation dates of 2008 and 2009 respectively. See: {CSW/3/8}. 496. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected for the following reasons: 496.1. As established by the evidence of Mr Rosendahl (which was agreed in the joint statement by Dr Wright’s expert, Mr Lynch), Dr Wright’s account of the Bitcoin White Paper being authored in LATEX is false. There is equally no basis for saying that the versions of the White Paper uploaded to the SSRN in 2019 were created in LATEX. 496.2. Accordingly, the only conclusion to be drawn from these versions having been created by Dr Wright in 2019 (as is admitted) but containing metadata referring to 2008 / 2009 creation dates is that the metadata information was deliberately backdated. 496.3. In summary, Dr Wright in 2019 posted publicly two versions of the Bitcoin White Paper which he presented as his work and which contained metadata timestamps backdated to 2008. In the context of Dr Wright claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto and to have written the Bitcoin White Paper, the only plausible explanation is that he was presenting these to the world as early originals of the paper written by him. (c) Conclusion 497. In addition to the points set out above, I refer also to the analysis in the main Judgment at [489]-[495] of what Dr Wright did with the pdfcreationdate command and how those commands were added to the White Paper LaTeX files in November 2023. 498. Accordingly, Dr Wright’s latest explanation, based on the assertion that the Bitcoin White Paper was created in LATEX, is plainly false. The document was deliberately backdated by Dr Wright, in an attempt to present those two versions of the Bitcoin White Paper as early originals written by him. This was all lies. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 28 of 42. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 28 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 26. The SSRN Submission (Particulars of Claim at [30]-[35] {A/2/10}) The Fourth Pleaded Example 489. On or about 21 August 2019, Dr Wright uploaded to the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) a document which he asserts to be the ‘final’ version of the Bitcoin White Paper, in which he is named as the author. The post claims that the document was written on 21 August 2008. Dr Wright posted two versions of what he claims to be his original version of the Bitcoin White Paper within SSRN. **(a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery ** 490. The metadata of the actual Bitcoin White Paper has a creation date of 24 March 2009. The first version Dr Wright submitted to SSRN has discrepancies in the document properties. Examination of this first version reveals that its metadata was tampered with - supplemental metadata was added to this version to superficially indicate a creation date of 24 January 2008 and a “modified” date of 21 May 2008. This added metadata displays as the creation and modified date in the user interface of standard consumer software, i.e. the tampered dates are what would appear to a layperson upon cursory examination. However, a forensic examination of the metadata of this first version reveals another “creation date” entry embedded within the metadata, specifying a creation date that corresponds exactly to the creation date of the Bitcoin White Paper, specifically “/CreationDate (D:20090324113315-06:00)". 491. The metadata of this first version includes an entry indicating that the original creation date is 29 March 2009, which is at odds with the creation date of 24 January 2008 that shows up in other parts of the metadata. In the premises, it is averred that this first version posted to SSRN is actually a copied version of the Bitcoin White Paper with alterations to its metadata (at least that the dates of 24 January 2008 and 21 May 2008 were added to the genuine metadata of the Bitcoin White Paper) to make it appear that it was created in 2008. It is averred that the dates of 24 January 2008 and 21 May 2008 were added to the genuine metadata of the Bitcoin White Paper by Wright to support his attempt to claim that he had drafted the Bitcoin White Paper. 492. The second version that Dr Wright uploaded to SSRN, which is the version he has currently uploaded there, had further changes to the metadata compared to the first version. However, the original creation date of 24 March 2009 from the actual Bitcoin White Paper still exists within the second version’s metadata. COPA allege that Dr Wright again sought to manipulate the metadata a second time but failed to remove the original creation date. 493. The genuine metadata in the actual Bitcoin White Paper and metadata contained within the two versions posted on SSRN by Dr Wright all state the 24 March 2009 date as being the creation date, with the dates/times agreeing to the millisecond. (b) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (b) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 494. In his Defence, Dr Wright admits that the two versions of the Bitcoin White Paper which Dr Wright uploaded to SSRN were not created in 2008 or 2009, but in 2019. He claims that his purpose in uploading these versions was not to prove that he was the author of the Bitcoin White Paper but “to assert [his] authorship of the White Paper”: see Defence, [55-56] {A/3/16}. In his Defence, Dr Wright gives no explanation for the uploaded versions having metadata creation dates of 2008 and 2009 respectively. 495. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright repeats the account given in his Defence. However, he now adds the assertion that he prepared each document in LATEX and that he set the metadata in LATEX to refer to creation dates of 2008 and 2009 respectively. See: {CSW/3/8}. 496. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected for the following reasons: 496.1. As established by the evidence of Mr Rosendahl (which was agreed in the joint statement by Dr Wright’s expert, Mr Lynch), Dr Wright’s account of the Bitcoin White Paper being authored in LATEX is false. There is equally no basis for saying that the versions of the White Paper uploaded to the SSRN in 2019 were created in LATEX. 496.2. Accordingly, the only conclusion to be drawn from these versions having been created by Dr Wright in 2019 (as is admitted) but containing metadata referring to 2008 / 2009 creation dates is that the metadata information was deliberately backdated. 496.3. In summary, Dr Wright in 2019 posted publicly two versions of the Bitcoin White Paper which he presented as his work and which contained metadata timestamps backdated to 2008. In the context of Dr Wright claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto and to have written the Bitcoin White Paper, the only plausible explanation is that he was presenting these to the world as early originals of the paper written by him. (c) Conclusion (c) Conclusion 497. In addition to the points set out above, I refer also to the analysis in the main Judgment at [489]-[495] of what Dr Wright did with the pdfcreationdate command and how those commands were added to the White Paper LaTeX files in November 2023. 498. Accordingly, Dr Wright’s latest explanation, based on the assertion that the Bitcoin White Paper was created in LATEX, is plainly false. The document was deliberately backdated by Dr Wright, in an attempt to present those two versions of the Bitcoin White Paper as early originals written by him. This was all lies. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

Stories, News & Mentions about MOBIFI

Mobifi’s Stories on HackerNoon

Mobifi's News & Mentions