Nakamotor

nakamotor

Startups of The Year 2023 Winners: North America 

Remember a few years back when Wells Fargo was exposed for their unethical new account sales practices? Kevin Pham was the ex-employee who was featured on many of the big news networks discussing their shady business practices. He also started the encouraging customers to close their accounts in a facebook post that went viral and gained national attention. Hold Wells Fargo Accountable movement Many of you may also know Kevin from the Bitcoin world where he is never shy about posting his opinions that quite often ruffle feathers. Actually, the guy tweets so much, I often wonder when he sleeps. I was introduced to Kevin through a mutual friend who said we should talk. A week later we were sitting across from one another at lunch eating barbeque discussing Bitcoin, shit coins and the things that matter most to us. The first thing I realized is the online persona that the majority of the world sees daily is only a small glimpse into who he really is. For a guy that I thought I would only have our love for Bitcoin in common, I found that we agreed on many things. I was so intrigued by him. I interrupted our conversation and said, I want to interview you. I think the world needs to really know who you are. After leaving lunch there was so much to unpack from our conversation. The one thing that resonated with me most was how family is the most important thing to Kevin even more so than money. Underneath all of the anti establishment and anti big business rhetoric, he is just a regular dude like many of us. In the Bitcoin and crypto world many people only see in people what they choose to. I have learned from many of the interviews I have done, you can’t judge a book by it’s cover and Kevin Pham is a perfect example of this. Many people may recognize Kevin from this photo on his social media. Kevin Pham Online Identity: Investor and Twitter commentator. RJ: Although I don’t really think in terms of rigid job titles. I see things that need to be said and I say them and I see things that need to be done and I do them. Simple as that. Years in the $BTC game: Five How might people know you? Twitter. How can people follow you? & Gab. Twitter What is your background, education or formal training? My formal professional background is in commercial banking. My formal education is in Finance and Economics. Do you think college is important? Generally speaking, I don’t like how Americans mindlessly view college as the next step after high school, especially people that don’t know what they want to do in life. If you don’t know what you want to do in life, the last thing you should be doing is getting into six figure debt trying to figure it out. You should try to work in and expose yourself to as many different fields as possible before making the huge financial commitment that is college tuition. Think of it like dating and marriage. For most people, you need to date around to learn about yourself and what you like before committing. I think a good middle ground is interning and working different jobs while you get your general education, that way, when it’s time to choose a major you can make a more informed decision; doing this also keeps you out of debt. Also as a general rule, the more uncertain you are about the future the less debt you should be in, as those debt service payments are highly certain. When did you become interested in Bitcoin and crypto? What is the single best experience you have had in this space? Being in Bitcoin is a perpetually good experience given I love things that are weird and new. But if I had to choose one, it’d be when Bitcoin hit $20k and a friend that I got into Bitcoin early texted me saying he’ll have enough money to send his kid to college, which caused me to weep uncontrollably. It was at that point I found out using Bitcoin to help the people I love means more to me than enriching myself personally. Tell us your biggest Bitcoin or crypto fail. Trading actively instead of just hodling. Kevin doing what he does best — posting on twitter. Where do you personally get your Bitcoin or crypto news? Twitter, my personal network, and crypto news outlets like Bitcoin Magazine, The Block, and Coindesk. What is something people don’t know about you that you are proud of? I dated a person that I didn’t know was transgendered. But when I found out I didn’t reject her in disgust, we became friends, learned from one another, and I helped her pay for a surgery. That was eye opening. I feel weird bragging about this though. Best tips you can give anyone new to the Bitcoin world? Put skin in the game by buying a little. That’ll give you incentive to learn about Bitcoin and the obscure knowledge required to understand it. Where did you grow up? East Side San Jose. What kind of kid were you? I spent a lot of time entertaining myself by running around playing out imaginary adventures I was having in my head. What advice would you give your younger self? Think less, do more. Were you raised a certain way to question authority? No, I was actually raised in a traditional Vietnamese household that emphasized the importance of respecting and submitting to authority. Questioning authority is innate for me, which is probably why I always get into trouble with authority figures. You exposed Wells Fargo for a lot of shady shit. What made you want to speak out? Putting skin in the game by shorting the stock. I believe if you’re going to do something that puts you at personal risk, there has to be a personal payoff. I don’t believe in martyrdom. Bitcoin is the same in this sense. Bitcoin is the most intellectually defensible crypto. By hodling Bitcoin, you’re incentivized to call out the logical inconsistencies of other cryptos. Kevin started the and it went viral. Hold Wells Fargo Accountable movement on facebook What ended up happening to Wells Fargo because of it? The CEO was forced to resign and return his bonus. How did your life change after it? Gave me more self confidence. I always thought I was crazy my entire life. That experience taught me to trust my intuition. Was there any backlash to you? Suprisingly, no. I didn’t hear one word from Wells Fargo. The FBI did try to talk to me for an unspecified reason though. You have worked behind the scenes at many banks. What made you leave? The slow pace, the shitty technology, the bureaucracy, all the regulatory compliance you have to deal with. Many people do not realize you have VC experience. Why do you disdain most VC’s? I think they’re overhyped and benefit greatly from proprietary dealflow derived from regulatory protectionism like the accredited investor requirement. Watching them get their asses handed them by anon crypto twitter accounts validated my intuition. Similar to going to college, I don’t think entrepreneurs should mindlessly pitch/raise money from VCs. VCs are looking specifically for hyper-growth companies, not all startups fit that profile. Kevin Pham interview on the Doug Polk Podcast Are there some that you will give a pass to? Yeah. VCs are not a monolith. I like , , , and . Peter Thiel Bill Gurley, Chamath Palihapitiya Matt Ocko Mike Maples What was it like being an early investor in Ethereum? It was very contrarian in that you had to already be well versed in and own Bitcoin in 2014 to invest. I also enjoyed the permissionless nature of that investment. What made you become one of the loudest voices against it? The DAO bailout, it being centralized under Vitalik, its high time preference, its insecurity, and the crony behavior their community engaged it to prevent the SEC from calling it a security. Moral hazard, centralization, and crony capitalism are antithetical to everything Bitcoin stands for. What is your beef with Vitalik Buterin? He’s Ethereum’s central figurehead. When there was a hoax that he died in a car crash ETH’s price crashed. I don’t make distinctions between non-human and human centralized points of failure because “it’s not nice.” What lessons did you learn in your early days investing in Ethereum and Bitcoin that help you today? It’s good to invest in interesting unpopular things. Do you ever get fearful that the Russian government or other shady characters might come after you for the things you tweet about? Yeah, that’s why I encourage people that support me in private to speak up themselves to lessen my single point of failure risk. I don’t intend to be anyone’s martyr. Although I highly doubt I’m important enough for Russia to risk its US relations over. What are your thoughts on crypto shills? We’re all shilling something. Bitcoiners shill for Bitcoin. Everyone talks their book. It’s good to be wary and not naive in this regard. What message do you want to convey to the world about why you are so committed to Bitcoin? People exchange their time (life) for money. You can literally enslave people if you control money. If we want to liberate humanity to reach its full potential we need to decentralize control over money as much as possible. Do you consider yourself a Bitcoin Maximalist, and are you comfortable with this label? Bitcoin Maximalism is a pejorative. Vitalik Buterin created to insult skeptics of Ethereum. I’m mostly a skeptic and Bitcoin just so happens to be the crypto with the least logical inconsistencies. Who are the biggest enemies of Bitcoin? The State, we’re threatening the immense power that comes with having a money creation monopoly. Which of these are actually the biggest threats to establishing sound money? Totalitarianism. What is your metric for Bitcoin success? Longevity. Kevin is not shy about sharing his opinion about Coinbase. Why are you so adamantly against a business like Coinbase? My view is they shameless engage in regulatory capture to create a global monopoly in which they can surveil the financial activity of billions of people. They’re basically becoming the Facebook of finance. Where would you recommend people procure Bitcoin? OTC, Bisq, or Cashapp. What tips can you give people about custodying their own Bitcoin? Not your keys, not your coins. Are you afraid of wrench attacks? Yeah, which is why I’m apprehensive to do interviews that feature me. You tweet a lot. How do you have the time to tweet so much? I make the majority of my money from investment capital gains and am happy living simply. Imagine a world where Bitcoin has become commonplace and no longer considered counter culture. What are you doing? Putting the same energy I put into Bitcoin into raising my family. What is your idea of being rich? Having the time and freedom to do what you love, be with the people you love, and to say what you really feel. People don’t realize that you are a family man. How important is family to you? I wouldn’t be able to take the amount of risk I do without a supportive family. They provide me with a sense of safety and security money can’t. In regards to being a family man, I wouldn’t say I necessarily am a good one, it’s just that I know the importance of family and try my best to do what’s right for them. At the end of the day, Kevin is just a regular dude who loves his family. What do you have to say to anyone focused solely on making money? Money is merely a tool that enables short term transactions between strangers. It’s a tool, nothing more, nothing less. What are your favorite things to do outside of the Bitcoin and crypto space? Hanging out with family and friends. What are some good books you can recommend? I don’t read books. What are your favorite Bitcoin Podcasts or youtube shows? Don’t really follow any closely. What are the top five songs on your playlist? It changes based on my mood. But 90’s alternative and 80’s new wave are staples. Who are some Bitcoiners you can recommend people to follow? Nick Szabo Who has inspired and influenced you over the years that you want to give props to? Satoshi Nakamoto, , , , and my mom. Nassim Taleb Peter Thiel Elon Musk If you like this interview, check out more of my other articles and interviews Hackernoon/@piratebeachbum or find me on twitter @piratebeachbum or @coin_strategy or coinstrategy.io

Into the Fire: Interview with Kevin Pham

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 40 of 42. 38. Spoofed email from Dr Wright in the name of Satoshi Nakamoto (1) {ID_001546} / {L8/338/1} 742. This document presents as an email sent in January 2014 from Satoshi Nakamoto to Dr Wright’s collaborator (Uyen Nguyen), as if the writer was in fact Dr Wright making use of the email address Satoshi@vistomail.com. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 743. The document is an inauthentic, spoofed email. [PM21 [32-34, 93]]. 744. The email was not sent from the account recorded as the sender. [PM21 [94]]. 745. The email was not sent from a permitted source and did not authenticate with the purported Vistomail origin server. [PM21 [20-34]]. 746. Email replies to this message would have been directed to Dr Wright at his email address craig.wright@hotwirepe.com. [PM21 [9-13]]. 747. The document originates from a computer with the name “cwright” and from an IP address of Dr Wright, being the same IP address as is associated with several other documents identified as originating from Dr Wright. [PM21 [14-18]]. 748. The document was recorded in its transmission header as being “for craig@rcjbr.org” and “Delivered to craig@rcjbr.org”. It was not retrieved from the mailbox of Satoshi Nakamoto, but a received item from within Dr Wright’s personal email inbox consistent with him being included as a blind copy (BCC) recipient. [PM21 [18-19]]. 749. No equivalent sent item has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM21 [35]]. 750. This email is not authentically from the controller of the email account “satoshi@vistomail.com”. [PM21 [34]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 751. 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. as suggesting that he was using a Satoshi vistomail account in 2014), contrary to fact. 752. The document is an email sent in Dr Wright’s style of language using Dr Wright’s personal and hotwirepe email addresses. 753. The document is an email sent to a collaborator of Dr Wright. 754. The text of the document discourages its recipient from showing the content of the email to others. 755. The document was recorded in its transmission header as being “for craig@rcjbr.org” and “Delivered to craig@rcjbr.org”. It was not retrieved from the mailbox of Satoshi Nakamoto, but a received item from within Dr Wright’s personal email inbox consistent with him being included as a blind copy (BCC) recipient. [PM21 [18-19]]. 756. No equivalent sent item has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM21 [35]]. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 57. Dr Wright does not dispute that this is a spoofed email, but denies that he created it. In Appendix B to Wright11, he claimed that it had not come from him or his mailbox; that somebody had sent it to the ATO; that the ATO had disclosed it to Ira Kleiman; and that Mr Kleiman had then disclosed it back to Dr Wright in the Kleiman litigation. Dr Wright said that it was likely that Ms Nguyen created this email, thinking that it would help him. See: {CSW/2/61}. 758. In his oral evidence, he said that this document was among those collected from the computer of a former employee of one of his companies who had access to emails to which they ought not have had access. He no longer said that it was likely that Ms Nguyen had created the email, saying only that it was a possibility. See: {Day4/64:3} to {Day4/68:2}. 759. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 759.1. Mr Madden’s unchallenged expert evidence is that two distinct entries in the email’s transmission header indicate that the message provided in disclosure has been taken as a received item from the mailbox craig@rcjbr.org [PM21 [18-19]]. That conclusion is at odds with Dr Wright’s evidence that the message was not taken from his email system. 759.2. Mr Madden’s unchallenged evidence is also that another entry in the transmission header indicates that the email was authored on a computer, the network name for which was “cwright” and which had an assigned IP address of 14.1.17.85 (which corresponds to a location in New South Wales, Australia) [PM21 [14-17]]. There are a large number of other emails in disclosure with those identifiers which appear to come from Dr Wright. They are discussed in Appendix PM18. 759.3. Dr Wright’s account posits a bizarre sequence of events in which Ms Nguyen (or possibly someone else) supposedly faked this email with a view to helping him (somehow), after which it found its way from an unidentified staff laptop to the ATO, then to Ira Kleiman, then back to Dr Wright. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this story. Nor is there any explanation given for the supposed steps in the sequence of events (how the email was originally supposed to be deployed; how, why and by whom it was sent to the ATO; why the ATO sent it to Mr Kleiman; etc.). 759.4. The simple explanation, which fits with the unchallenged forensic findings, is that Dr Wright created this email to support his claim to be Satoshi and later disclosed it in his legal proceedings, but is now seeking to distance himself from a patently forged document. (d) Conclusion 760. Dr Wright’s explanations are absurd. He plainly forged this email. 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 40 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 40 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 38. Spoofed email from Dr Wright in the name of Satoshi Nakamoto (1) {ID_001546} / {L8/338/1} 742. This document presents as an email sent in January 2014 from Satoshi Nakamoto to Dr Wright’s collaborator (Uyen Nguyen), as if the writer was in fact Dr Wright making use of the email address Satoshi@vistomail.com. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 743. The document is an inauthentic, spoofed email. [PM21 [32-34, 93]]. 744. The email was not sent from the account recorded as the sender. [PM21 [94]]. 745. The email was not sent from a permitted source and did not authenticate with the purported Vistomail origin server. [PM21 [20-34]]. 746. Email replies to this message would have been directed to Dr Wright at his email address craig.wright@hotwirepe.com. [PM21 [9-13]]. 747. The document originates from a computer with the name “cwright” and from an IP address of Dr Wright, being the same IP address as is associated with several other documents identified as originating from Dr Wright. [PM21 [14-18]]. 748. The document was recorded in its transmission header as being “for craig@rcjbr.org” and “Delivered to craig@rcjbr.org”. It was not retrieved from the mailbox of Satoshi Nakamoto, but a received item from within Dr Wright’s personal email inbox consistent with him being included as a blind copy (BCC) recipient. [PM21 [18-19]]. 749. No equivalent sent item has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM21 [35]]. 750. This email is not authentically from the controller of the email account “satoshi@vistomail.com”. [PM21 [34]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 751. 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. as suggesting that he was using a Satoshi vistomail account in 2014), contrary to fact. 752. The document is an email sent in Dr Wright’s style of language using Dr Wright’s personal and hotwirepe email addresses. 753. The document is an email sent to a collaborator of Dr Wright. 754. The text of the document discourages its recipient from showing the content of the email to others. 755. The document was recorded in its transmission header as being “for craig@rcjbr.org” and “Delivered to craig@rcjbr.org”. It was not retrieved from the mailbox of Satoshi Nakamoto, but a received item from within Dr Wright’s personal email inbox consistent with him being included as a blind copy (BCC) recipient. [PM21 [18-19]]. 756. No equivalent sent item has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM21 [35]]. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 57. Dr Wright does not dispute that this is a spoofed email, but denies that he created it. In Appendix B to Wright11, he claimed that it had not come from him or his mailbox; that somebody had sent it to the ATO; that the ATO had disclosed it to Ira Kleiman; and that Mr Kleiman had then disclosed it back to Dr Wright in the Kleiman litigation. Dr Wright said that it was likely that Ms Nguyen created this email, thinking that it would help him. See: {CSW/2/61}. 758. In his oral evidence, he said that this document was among those collected from the computer of a former employee of one of his companies who had access to emails to which they ought not have had access. He no longer said that it was likely that Ms Nguyen had created the email, saying only that it was a possibility. See: {Day4/64:3} to {Day4/68:2}. 759. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 759.1. Mr Madden’s unchallenged expert evidence is that two distinct entries in the email’s transmission header indicate that the message provided in disclosure has been taken as a received item from the mailbox craig@rcjbr.org [PM21 [18-19]]. That conclusion is at odds with Dr Wright’s evidence that the message was not taken from his email system. 759.2. Mr Madden’s unchallenged evidence is also that another entry in the transmission header indicates that the email was authored on a computer, the network name for which was “cwright” and which had an assigned IP address of 14.1.17.85 (which corresponds to a location in New South Wales, Australia) [PM21 [14-17]]. There are a large number of other emails in disclosure with those identifiers which appear to come from Dr Wright. They are discussed in Appendix PM18. 759.3. Dr Wright’s account posits a bizarre sequence of events in which Ms Nguyen (or possibly someone else) supposedly faked this email with a view to helping him (somehow), after which it found its way from an unidentified staff laptop to the ATO, then to Ira Kleiman, then back to Dr Wright. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this story. Nor is there any explanation given for the supposed steps in the sequence of events (how the email was originally supposed to be deployed; how, why and by whom it was sent to the ATO; why the ATO sent it to Mr Kleiman; etc.). 759.4. The simple explanation, which fits with the unchallenged forensic findings, is that Dr Wright created this email to support his claim to be Satoshi and later disclosed it in his legal proceedings, but is now seeking to distance himself from a patently forged document. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 760. Dr Wright’s explanations are absurd. He plainly forged this email. 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 takes Craig Wright to Court for Impersonating Satoshi Nakamoto with Forged Emails 

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

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 21 of 42. 19. Tominaka Nakamoto: Monumenta Nipponica {ID_004019} / {L2/245/1} 355. The document presents as a printout of a journal article concerning a historical figure called “Nakamoto”, purportedly downloaded on 5 January 2008, and annotated by Dr Wright by hand in his own handwriting in terms associating himself with that historical figure “Nakamoto”. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 356. The document has been backdated. [PM6 [55]. The timestamp at the top of the document has been altered, with the digits of the hour and of the year entered in different font to the rest of the timestamp. [PM6 [3]]. 357. The document is a hand-annotated printout of a digital document [PM6 [5]]. The underlying digital document has not been disclosed. 358. The original source of the document was discovered by searching on the internet. [PM6 [27-30]]. 359. The genuine date of the source document is not 2008, but 2015. The document remains available online now. [PM6 [27-32]]. 360. The original document was downloaded from the academic repository website JSTOR. By inspection of the footer against a comparator data set of over 180 other documents downloaded from JSTOR, it is possible to identify 7 epochs during which the design of the footer of JSTOR documents changed in the decade between January 2007 and December 2016. The dates of changes of design can be pinpointed to six specific days in that decade. By comparison of the footer of {ID_004019} to that data set, it is possible to establish that the footer is contemporary to the period between 19 March 2013 and 22 March 2016. [PM6 [33-47]]. 361. Further, by comparison with 10 other independently-downloaded documents dated 5 Jan 2008 within that dataset, it can be established that the footer of the {ID_004019} is notably different from those on documents from 2008, and therefore is not contemporaneous with such documents from 2008. [PM6 [48-51]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 362. The underlying digital document has not been disclosed. 363. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. by suggesting that he had read a paper about Tominaga Nakamoto before he coined the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto), contrary to fact. 364. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright claims that the name “Satoshi Nakamoto” was chosen due to his ‘admiration for the philosopher Tominaga Nakamoto’. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright1 [66]]. 365. Dr Wright has publicly asserted this document to be supportive of his claim. 366. Dr Wright has publicly maintained the authenticity of this document in social media posts. 367. This document was photographed by Dr Wright for transmission via WhatsApp [PM6 [7]]. The photograph was taken around 1 week before this document was scanned into PDF form. This is consistent with other examples within disclosure where Dr Wright has photographed other documents bearing indicia of tampering, for sending via WhatsApp, before they were scanned and disclosed. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 368. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright claimed that the document dating from 2015 which Mr Madden downloaded from the internet and identified as the source document was copied from his document and then edited. He claims that this was done after he had mentioned the document as his inspiration. See {CSW/2/68}. In his oral evidence, Dr Wright added that this had been done by the person operating the gwern.net website, who he claimed had been working together with Ira Kleiman to discredit him: {Day2/21:13} to {Day2/22:16}. Thus, Dr Wright’s claim is that his document, with an “accessed” date from 2008 is genuine and that a false version was produced by his enemies to reflect an “accessed” date from 2015 and uploaded to the internet in order to undermine his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 369. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest, for the following reasons: 369.1. It is inherently implausible that Dr Wright’s version should be authentic and the version accessed from the internet should have been doctored, since the numerals in the “accessed” date are misaligned in Dr Wright’s version (suggesting manipulation) but the numerals in that date are perfectly aligned in the version on the internet. 369.2. There is a second powerful reason why Dr Wright’s version is inauthentic, namely that the footer design corresponds to JSTOR documents dating from 2015 and not to such documents dating from 2008. Mr Madden has reviewed a large sample of JSTOR documents and established that the footer design was updated at set points in time, so that he can be confident from the footer design that Dr Wright’s document does not date to 2008. He was unshaken in that position on crossexamination: {Day16/66:7} to {Day16/68:7}. 369.3. Although Dr Wright asserted that different JSTOR repositories had footer designs updating at different times and that he had documents to make good that proposition ({Day2/20:13} to {Day2/21:6}), there is no documentary support for that assertion (which is at odds with Mr Madden’s findings). It is reasonably to be inferred that, if that assertion could be made good, Dr Wright’s well-resourced legal team would have done so. 369.4. Dr Wright’s essential conspiracy theory does not work as a matter of the dates. He gave the interview in which he publicly cited this document as his inspiration for the Nakamoto name in December 2019 (see {L16/86/1}; {L16/47/1}). The document which he now says was doctored and released to discredit him has been available online in precisely the same form since 2016: see PM6, [30]. 369.5. There is not a shred of evidence for Dr Wright’s conspiracy theory. It is also an odd story, even on its own terms, since Ira Kleiman’s claim depended on saying that Dr Wright was part of “Satoshi Nakamoto”. (d) Conclusion 370. I can only agree with COPA’s submissions. The document was plainly forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

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

COPA Challenges Authenticity of Craig Wright’s Tominaga Nakamoto Document

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 13 of 42. 11. “The King2.rtf” {ID_004695} {L2/49/1} 234. The document purports to be an article on network security, involving discussion of quorum systems, and part of what Dr Wright claimed was precursor work on concepts featuring in his development of Bitcoin. By its presence in BDOPC.raw, the document purports to pre-date 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 235. This is a document which was among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch Joint Report [12] Q/6/5]. 236. The document has been backdated. It is a Rich Text File created with the editor version Riched20.dll v10.0.19041. That version of Riched20 is the version associated with the May 2020 update of Windows 10. [Madden3 [86-91] G/5/34] 237. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Further: 237.1. Comparing the deleted version of this document to the disclosed version shows that this document did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. [PM46 [12] H/278/4] 237.2. It was modified within BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. [PM46 [12] H/278/4] 237.3. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. 237.4. The modification included deletion of metadata which were not contemporaneous to 2007 but which are contemporaneous to 12 September 2023. 238. A precursor version of this document was included in the deleted image InfoDef09.raw. Further, the same document was recoverable as a deleted file within BDOPC.raw [PM46 [29 H/278/8]. The recovered, deleted version of this document included the following: [PM46 [24] H/278/7] 238.1. An indication that the author was Craig S Wright. [PM46 [24] H/278/7] 238.2. An indication that the operator of the software in use was Craig S Wright. [PM46 [24] H/278/7] 238.3. A timestamp dating its creation to 12 September 2023. [PM46 [25.a.] H/278/8] 238.4. A Grammarly timestamp indicating it was interacted with on 12 September 2023 at 07:38:30 and 244 milliseconds. [PM46 [25.c.] H/278/8] 238.5. Reference to the use of Dragon Dictate software. [PM46 [25.d.] H/278/8] 238.6. A reference to the use of Zotero software version 6.0.27 [PM46 [24] H/278/7]. That version of Zotero was not released until 5 September 2023 [PM46 [20] H/278/7]. 239. This document and the folder in which it was located contain metadata irregularities indicating the use of clock manipulation to alter their timestamps. [PM46 [12] H/278/4] 240. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. 241. Part of the chain of editing of document is another deleted document recovered from BDOPC.raw called “the King.rtf”. [PM46 [13] H/278/5]. “The King.rtf” was edited within one minute of “The King2.rtf”. “The King.rtf” contains: 241.1. References to the same user as author and operator of the software, “Craig S Wright”. [PM46 [18] H/278/6]. 241.2. The same Grammarly timestamp indicating it was interacted with on 12 September 2023 at 07:38:30 and 244 milliseconds. [PM46 [18] H/278/6]. 241.3. References to the font Calibri Light [PM46 [18] H/278/6], a font which had not yet been designed in 2007. 241.4. References to the same 5 September 2023 version of Zotero [PM46 [18] H/278/6]. 242. Other related Dragon Dictate files, “The King.dra” and “The King2.dra” had existed within InfoDef09.raw and were deleted, and those files show similarly inconsistent metadata. [Madden4 [30-40] G/6/13]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 243. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 244. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 245. The deleted documents record the user and editor as “Craig S Wright”. This information was deleted. 246. The deleted documents record the use of Grammarly in connection with the documents. Dr Wright is a user of Grammarly software. 247. The deleted documents record the use of Dragon Dictate in connection with the documents. Dr Wright is a user of Dragon Dictate software. 248. The deleted documents record the use of Zotero in connection with the documents. Dr Wright is a user of Zotero software. 249. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 249.1. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is one of Dr Wright’s “versions of a paper titled “The King's Wi-Fi: Leveraging Quorum Systems in the Byzantine Generals Problem for Enhanced Network Security” that Dr Wright produced for an examination at the Sans Institute. The papers describe “using a proof-of-work chain to solve a problem in distributed computing known as the Byzantine Generals Problem, which is concerned with how to achieve consensus in groups that include hostile actors.” [Wright 6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field 1, L20/223/5] 249.2. It is said to be one of Dr Wright’s “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/4] 250. The document was not disclosed at the proper time. It was disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 251. Dr Wright accepted that this file (found on the BDO Drive) was created with a version of Windows which was the May 2020 update, and that it was feasible that there had been someone accessing the BDO Drive. However, he disputed Mr Madden’s findings that the version of this file found in the InfoDef.raw deleted folder contained signs of creation on 12 September 2023. Mr Madden based his findings on Zotero and Grammarly tags found in that equivalent version of the file, but Dr Wright claimed that Zotero and Grammarly do not work in the way suggested and do not have a plug-in for .rtf files. {Day5/76:15} and following. 252. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 252.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 252.2. Dr Wright accepts these documents have been tampered with, but blames Mr Ager-Hanssen. As set out above, that story lacks any credibility. 252.3. The files were clearly created using Grammarly and Zotero in 2023, as the unchallenged forensic findings by Mr Madden demonstrate: Madden4 Appendix PM46 {H/278/5}. There is no evidence to support Dr Wright’s assertion to the contrary, and Mr Madden was not cross-examined on the point. 252.4. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004695 was manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

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

Forensic Findings Undermine Craig Wright’s Claim to Be the Real Satoshi Nakamoto

Court Rules Craig Wright Definitely Isn't Satoshi Nakamoto

আদালতের নিয়ম ক্রেগ রাইট অবশ্যই সাতোশি নাকামোতো নন

Gericht entscheidet: Craig Wright ist definitiv nicht Satoshi Nakamoto

La corte dictamina que Craig Wright definitivamente no es Satoshi Nakamoto

Le tribunal décide que Craig Wright n'est définitivement pas Satoshi Nakamoto

कोर्ट ने फैसला सुनाया कि क्रेग राइट निश्चित रूप से सातोशी नाकामोतो नहीं हैं

裁判所はクレイグ・ライトが間違いなくサトシ・ナカモトではないと判決

법원 판결에 따르면 크레이그 라이트는 확실히 나카모토 사토시가 아니다

Tribunal decide que Craig Wright definitivamente não é Satoshi Nakamoto

Суд постановил, что Крейг Райт определенно не Сатоши Накамото

Mahkeme Kararı Craig Wright Kesinlikle Satoshi Nakamoto Değildir

Phán quyết của tòa án Craig Wright chắc chắn không phải là Satoshi Nakamoto

法院裁定 Craig Wright 绝对不是中本聪

COPA Sues Craig Wright for Pretending to be Bitcoin founder, Satoshi Nakamoto 

A new theory from a YouTuber suggests Satoshi Nakamoto, the founder of Bitcoin may comprise of three people who merged their first and last names. This is contrary to previous theories that suggest Satoshi is just one person. Certain individuals suspected to be Satoshi may not have comprised of the ‘persons’ that founded Bitcoin. Of course, you've heard of Bitcoin. You've also heard that its creator is the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto. This theory emerged on October 31st, 2008, after the Bitcoin white paper was released via a cypherpunk mailing list under the name Satoshi Nakamoto, leaving the world to speculate whether it was an individual or a group. New evidence has brought us closer to identifying who Satoshi is. Many believe Satoshi Nakamoto is just one person; well, we are about to find out. Satoshi Nakamoto Comprises of 3 persons - New Evidence Reveals Recent evidence presented by a Youtuber - Fooch, suggests that Hal Finney, the first person to receive Bitcoin, and Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, may have attended the same conference, Crypto '98, in Santa Barbara, California in 1998. By checking the event's program info, Fooch discovers a Satoshi in attendance. Searching for the term "Naka" leads him to a page detailing a presentation by Satoshi Hada and Toshiaki Tanaka on The Existence of 3-round Zero-knowledge Protocols at Crypto '98. That's not all. Fooch then searched on Google for Satoshi Hada Nakamoto, and boom, this post on X popped up, showing that the creators of Bitcoin allegedly comprise three researchers who may have also worked with IBM. The archived link leads to an IBM research paper. “Satoshi is allegedly 3 researchers from IBM”. Fooch said. Also, Fooch’s check on Toshiaki Tanaka and Naohiko Uramoto shows that they, at one time, worked at IBM. Right under the post is a comment tagging what seems to be Satoshi Hada’s account. Here's what it looks like 👇🏽 Maybe a coincidence 🧐 Under Satoshi Hada's most recent post on X, which was in 2017 by the way, someone commented by typing 'Satoshi Nakamoto' backward. What does this person know? Also, Satoshi Hada's previous repost on X in 2012 was about the IBM CEO predicting the future of business. Fooch's intelligent investigation was able to connect the dots based on an interview with Fran, Hal Finney’s wife. She recalled her husband communicating with someone named Satoshi, whom he believed to be based in Japan. Evidence from a YouTube video by The Bitcoin Layer corroborates that Satoshi’s working hours align with the PST time zone which is used in Japan. If “They” Are Satoshi, Why Are They Hiding? Fooch is of the opinion that the Japanese are humble people unlike Americans or Australians who may want to prove anything. Well, what do you think about Fooch’s theory? It appears to be the closest sketch to drawing Satoshi Nakamoto though. Another interesting thing that can be noticed is Satoshi's use of “we” in the bitcoin whitepaper - “We propose a…” Other Alleged Satoshis In an adventure to discover the genius behind Bitcoin, various theories have emerged. Some individuals have purposely claimed to be Satoshi despite evidence proving otherwise. Others have been linked to Satoshi because of their early association with Bitcoin, and one unlucky fellow was accused due to a name coincidence. Let's find out who they are and why they may not be 'Satoshi’. Craig Wright An Australian scientist who has been ruled as a fraudster by a judge in the United Kingdom has long claimed to be the founder of Bitcoin. However, his claims lack tangible evidence beyond document forgery, and he has offered many excuses for his inability to prove it, including 'stomping on the hard drive’ that contains files to prove that he created Bitcoin. Dorian Nakamoto When you google Satoshi Nakamoto, the image you often see is that of Dorian Nakamoto, who has denied being the founder of Bitcoin despite the name coincidence. Dorian is a retired physicist. In a 2014 exposé with Newsweek, where he was accused of being the founder of Bitcoin, he claimed he was wrongly quoted when asked about Bitcoin, thinking the question related to his career, and said: “I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it.” When the exposé went viral, Dorian stated that he felt victimized and decided to tell his own side of the story. “I’m saying I’m no longer in engineering. That’s it. And even if I was, when we get hired, you have to sign this document, contract saying you will not reveal anything we divulge during and after employment. So that’s what I implied.
It sounded like I was involved before with bitcoin and looked like I’m not involved now. That’s not what I meant. I want to clarify that.” Dorian's side of the story attracted sympathy from the Bitcoin community, resulting in donations of over 102 bitcoins which is worth almost a hundred million dollars today. Gavin Andersen It's understandable why some might have suspected Gavin Andresen of being Satoshi Nakamoto. He joined Bitcoin as a core developer in its early stages, creating important features that remain crucial to the Bitcoin ecosystem today. In the documentary "The Bitcoin Story," Gavin repeatedly referred to Satoshi as a "he" and emphasized Satoshi's genius: “He's obviously had some academic training because he wrote this academic whitepaper that is in the style of a peer reviewed academic journal article. He's obviously a genius. I’d love to meet him someday.” “As far as I know, no one has actually met Satoshi. No one knows who he, or she, or they are. I've never talked with Satoshi although I have communicated with him electronically via email or on online forums.
Satoshi started working on Bitcoin he says in 2007, and it actually took him a couple of years to convince himself that he could actually create a system that would work.” Gavin believes he was the last person to speak with Satoshi: “I don't know who might have had the last interaction with Satoshi, it might have possibly been me. My very last email to Satoshi, I actually told him I had been invited to give a talk at the CIA. He had already told me he was going to step back. I don't know if me telling him I was going to visit the CIA was the reason I never heard from him again but I certainly think it didn't help.” Hal Finney If you're a Bitcoin enthusiast, you've likely heard of Hal Finney. He was the first person to receive Bitcoin in a transaction, receiving 10 bitcoins from Satoshi Nakamoto on January 12, 2009. This marked him as an early supporter and contributor to the project. As a cryptographer, Finney recognized the potential of Bitcoin, predicted that it would hit $1 million, and actively contributed to its development. He was a passionate advocate for privacy and saw Bitcoin as a solution to financial transaction privacy concerns. Sadly, Hal passed away on August 28, 2014, after battling with complications from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) for five years. Recent research by Jameson Lopp, a Bitcoin researcher, has provided evidence that Hal Finney was not Satoshi Nakamoto. This research analyzed the timing of a specific Bitcoin transaction and Hal Finney's participation in a race, concluding that they occurred simultaneously, making it impossible for him to have been Satoshi at that time. Adam Back British cryptographer and CEO of Blockstream has also been suspected to be Satoshi because of his early involvement with Bitcoin. In 1997, Adam developed Hashcash, a proof-of-work system that is now used in Bitcoin mining. This invention is referenced in Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin white paper. Through public emails revealed between Satoshi and Adam, it appears both individuals have distinct communication styles and technical expertise. Len Sasseman Len Sassaman, a renowned cryptographer and academic researcher, made significant contributions to the field of cryptography and privacy. While his work indirectly influenced the development of Bitcoin, there is no concrete evidence to support the claim that he was Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin. After Sassaman's untimely death in 2011, the Bitcoin community honored him in a unique and lasting way. A tribute was embedded in block 138725 of the Bitcoin blockchain, forever commemorating his legacy. A message in the block reads: "Len was our friend.A brilliant mind, a kind soul, and a devious schemer.” A new theory from a YouTuber suggests Satoshi Nakamoto, the founder of Bitcoin may comprise of three people who merged their first and last names. This is contrary to previous theories that suggest Satoshi is just one person. A new theory from a YouTuber suggests Satoshi Nakamoto, the founder of Bitcoin may comprise of three people who merged their first and last names. This is contrary to previous theories that suggest Satoshi is just one person. A new theory from a YouTuber suggests Satoshi Nakamoto, the founder of Bitcoin may comprise of three people who merged their first and last names. This is contrary to previous theories that suggest Satoshi is just one person. Certain individuals suspected to be Satoshi may not have comprised of the ‘persons’ that founded Bitcoin. Certain individuals suspected to be Satoshi may not have comprised of the ‘persons’ that founded Bitcoin . Certain individuals suspected to be Satoshi may not have comprised of the ‘persons’ that founded Bitcoin Of course, you've heard of Bitcoin. You've also heard that its creator is the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto. This theory emerged on October 31st, 2008, after the Bitcoin white paper was released via a cypherpunk mailing list under the name Satoshi Nakamoto, leaving the world to speculate whether it was an individual or a group. New evidence has brought us closer to identifying who Satoshi is. Many believe Satoshi Nakamoto is just one person; well, we are about to find out. Satoshi Nakamoto Comprises of 3 persons - New Evidence Reveals Recent evidence presented by a Youtuber - Fooch, suggests that Hal Finney, the first person to receive Bitcoin, and Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, may have attended the same conference, Crypto '98, in Santa Barbara, California in 1998. By checking the event's program info, Fooch discovers a Satoshi in attendance. Searching for the term "Naka" leads him to a page detailing a presentation by Satoshi Hada and Toshiaki Tanaka on The Existence of 3-round Zero-knowledge Protocols at Crypto '98. The Existence of 3-round Zero-knowledge Protocols Crypto '98. That's not all. Fooch then searched on Google for Satoshi Hada Nakamoto , and boom, this post on X popped up, showing that the creators of Bitcoin allegedly comprise three researchers who may have also worked with IBM. The archived link leads to an IBM research paper. Satoshi Hada Nakamoto “Satoshi is allegedly 3 researchers from IBM”. Fooch said. Also, Fooch’s check on Toshiaki Tanaka and Naohiko Uramoto shows that they, at one time, worked at IBM. Right under the post is a comment tagging what seems to be Satoshi Hada’s account. Here's what it looks like 👇🏽 Maybe a coincidence 🧐 Under Satoshi Hada's most recent post on X, which was in 2017 by the way, someone commented by typing 'Satoshi Nakamoto' backward. What does this person know? Also, Satoshi Hada's previous repost on X in 2012 was about the IBM CEO predicting the future of business. Fooch's intelligent investigation was able to connect the dots based on an interview with Fran, Hal Finney’s wife. She recalled her husband communicating with someone named Satoshi, whom he believed to be based in Japan. Evidence from a YouTube video by The Bitcoin Layer corroborates that Satoshi’s working hours align with the PST time zone which is used in Japan. If “They” Are Satoshi, Why Are They Hiding? Fooch is of the opinion that the Japanese are humble people unlike Americans or Australians who may want to prove anything. Well, what do you think about Fooch’s theory? It appears to be the closest sketch to drawing Satoshi Nakamoto though. Another interesting thing that can be noticed is Satoshi's use of “we” in the bitcoin whitepaper - “We propose a…” Other Alleged Satoshis In an adventure to discover the genius behind Bitcoin, various theories have emerged. Some individuals have purposely claimed to be Satoshi despite evidence proving otherwise. Others have been linked to Satoshi because of their early association with Bitcoin, and one unlucky fellow was accused due to a name coincidence. Let's find out who they are and why they may not be 'Satoshi’. Craig Wright Craig Wright Craig Wright An Australian scientist who has been ruled as a fraudster by a judge in the United Kingdom has long claimed to be the founder of Bitcoin. However, his claims lack tangible evidence beyond document forgery, and he has offered many excuses for his inability to prove it, including 'stomping on the hard drive’ that contains files to prove that he created Bitcoin. Dorian Nakamoto Dorian Nakamoto Dorian Nakamoto When you google Satoshi Nakamoto, the image you often see is that of Dorian Nakamoto, who has denied being the founder of Bitcoin despite the name coincidence. Dorian is a retired physicist. In a 2014 exposé with Newsweek , where he was accused of being the founder of Bitcoin, he claimed he was wrongly quoted when asked about Bitcoin, thinking the question related to his career, and said: Newsweek “I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it.” “I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it.” When the exposé went viral, Dorian stated that he felt victimized and decided to tell his own side of the story. “I’m saying I’m no longer in engineering. That’s it. And even if I was, when we get hired, you have to sign this document, contract saying you will not reveal anything we divulge during and after employment. So that’s what I implied. It sounded like I was involved before with bitcoin and looked like I’m not involved now. That’s not what I meant. I want to clarify that.” “I’m saying I’m no longer in engineering. That’s it. And even if I was, when we get hired, you have to sign this document, contract saying you will not reveal anything we divulge during and after employment. So that’s what I implied. It sounded like I was involved before with bitcoin and looked like I’m not involved now. That’s not what I meant. I want to clarify that.” Dorian's side of the story attracted sympathy from the Bitcoin community, resulting in donations of over 102 bitcoins which is worth almost a hundred million dollars today. Gavin Andersen Gavin Andersen Gavin Andersen It's understandable why some might have suspected Gavin Andresen of being Satoshi Nakamoto. He joined Bitcoin as a core developer in its early stages, creating important features that remain crucial to the Bitcoin ecosystem today. In the documentary "The Bitcoin Story," Gavin repeatedly referred to Satoshi as a "he" and emphasized Satoshi's genius: “He's obviously had some academic training because he wrote this academic whitepaper that is in the style of a peer reviewed academic journal article. He's obviously a genius. I’d love to meet him someday.” “He's obviously had some academic training because he wrote this academic whitepaper that is in the style of a peer reviewed academic journal article. He's obviously a genius. I’d love to meet him someday.” “As far as I know, no one has actually met Satoshi. No one knows who he, or she, or they are. I've never talked with Satoshi although I have communicated with him electronically via email or on online forums. Satoshi started working on Bitcoin he says in 2007, and it actually took him a couple of years to convince himself that he could actually create a system that would work.” “As far as I know, no one has actually met Satoshi. No one knows who he, or she, or they are. I've never talked with Satoshi although I have communicated with him electronically via email or on online forums. Satoshi started working on Bitcoin he says in 2007, and it actually took him a couple of years to convince himself that he could actually create a system that would work.” Gavin believes he was the last person to speak with Satoshi: “I don't know who might have had the last interaction with Satoshi, it might have possibly been me. My very last email to Satoshi, I actually told him I had been invited to give a talk at the CIA. He had already told me he was going to step back. I don't know if me telling him I was going to visit the CIA was the reason I never heard from him again but I certainly think it didn't help.” “I don't know who might have had the last interaction with Satoshi, it might have possibly been me. My very last email to Satoshi, I actually told him I had been invited to give a talk at the CIA. He had already told me he was going to step back. I don't know if me telling him I was going to visit the CIA was the reason I never heard from him again but I certainly think it didn't help.” Hal Finney Hal Finney Hal Finney If you're a Bitcoin enthusiast, you've likely heard of Hal Finney. He was the first person to receive Bitcoin in a transaction, receiving 10 bitcoins from Satoshi Nakamoto on January 12, 2009. This marked him as an early supporter and contributor to the project. As a cryptographer, Finney recognized the potential of Bitcoin, predicted that it would hit $1 million, and actively contributed to its development. He was a passionate advocate for privacy and saw Bitcoin as a solution to financial transaction privacy concerns. Sadly, Hal passed away on August 28, 2014, after battling with complications from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) for five years. Recent research by Jameson Lopp, a Bitcoin researcher, has provided evidence that Hal Finney was not Satoshi Nakamoto. This research analyzed the timing of a specific Bitcoin transaction and Hal Finney's participation in a race, concluding that they occurred simultaneously, making it impossible for him to have been Satoshi at that time. Adam Back Adam Back Adam Back British cryptographer and CEO of Blockstream has also been suspected to be Satoshi because of his early involvement with Bitcoin. In 1997, Adam developed Hashcash, a proof-of-work system that is now used in Bitcoin mining. This invention is referenced in Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin white paper. Through public emails revealed between Satoshi and Adam, it appears both individuals have distinct communication styles and technical expertise. Len Sasseman Len Sasseman Len Sasseman Len Sassaman, a renowned cryptographer and academic researcher, made significant contributions to the field of cryptography and privacy. While his work indirectly influenced the development of Bitcoin, there is no concrete evidence to support the claim that he was Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin. After Sassaman's untimely death in 2011, the Bitcoin community honored him in a unique and lasting way. A tribute was embedded in block 138725 of the Bitcoin blockchain, forever commemorating his legacy. A message in the block reads: " Len was our friend.A brilliant mind, a kind soul, and a devious schemer .” Len was our friend.A brilliant mind, a kind soul, and a devious schemer

Has Satoshi Nakamoto's Identity Finally Been Revealed?

সাতোশি নাকামোটোর পরিচয় কি অবশেষে প্রকাশ করা হয়েছে?

Wurde die Identität von Satoshi Nakamoto endlich enthüllt?

¿Se ha revelado finalmente la identidad de Satoshi Nakamoto?

L'identité de Satoshi Nakamoto a-t-elle enfin été révélée ?

क्या सातोशी नाकामोतो की पहचान अंततः उजागर हो गई है?

サトシ・ナカモトの正体はついに明らかになったのか？

나카모토 사토시의 정체가 드디어 밝혀졌나요?

A identidade de Satoshi Nakamoto foi finalmente revelada?

Личность Сатоши Накамото наконец раскрыта?

Satoshi Nakamoto'nun Kimliği Nihayet Ortaya Çıktı mı?

Danh tính của Satoshi Nakamoto cuối cùng đã được tiết lộ?

中本聪的身份终于揭晓了吗？

Cypherpunks Write Code: The Mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto

সাইফারপাঙ্কস কোড লিখুন: রহস্যময় সাতোশি নাকামোটো

Cypherpunks schreiben Code: Der mysteriöse Satoshi Nakamoto

Código de escritura de Cypherpunks: El misterioso Satoshi Nakamoto

Cypherpunks écrit du code : le mystérieux Satoshi Nakamoto

साइफरपंक्स कोड लिखें: रहस्यमय सातोशी नाकामोतो

サイファーパンクがコードを書く: 謎のサトシ・ナカモト

사이퍼펑크의 코드 작성: 신비한 나카모토 사토시

Cypherpunks escrevem código: o misterioso Satoshi Nakamoto

Шифропанки пишут код: загадочный Сатоши Накамото

Şifrepunklar Kod Yazıyor: Gizemli Satoshi Nakamoto

Cypherpunks viết mã: Satoshi Nakamoto bí ẩn

密码朋克编写代码：神秘的中本聪

Stories, News & Mentions about NAKAMOTOR

Nakamotor’s Stories on HackerNoon