Paper bags will soon be available for customers again at the LCBO, after the premier ordered the Crown corporation to reverse its reusable bag policy.

Premier Doug Ford calls for LCBO to bring back paper bags | CBC News

Toilet paper wipes out thousands of acres of Canadian forest each year, and demand for it is growing.

Eco-friendly startups are turning to treeless toilet paper

Paper bags could soon return to the LCBO following a request from Ontario’s premier.

Doug Ford directs LCBO to go back to using single-use paper bags

Ontario’s liquor monopoly says it will comply with Ford’s directive to abandon policy it said would save the equivalent of 188,000 trees a year

Premier Doug Ford requests LCBO reinstate free paper bags - The Globe and Mail

The LCBO had first announced the phasing out of the paper bags last spring.

Doug Ford forces LCBO to reinstate paper bags for customers

The LCBO phased out paper bags in September 2023, encouraging customers to bring a reusable bag or purchase one.

Ford wants LCBO to bring back paper bags

JEE Mains 2024 Exam LIVE: The National Testing Agency (NTA) is conducting JEE Mains 2024 session 2 exam from today. As per the schedule, NTA JEE Paper 1 exam will be conducted in two shifts- 9 am to 12 noon and 3 pm to 6 pm. 12.57 lakh students have registered for JEEE Mains 2024 session 2. ...

JEE Mains 2024 LIVE Exam Analysis: Session 2 Slot 1 Ends, What Students Say | Times Now

Students of Class 10 students appeared for the Hindi and Commerce subjects while the students of Class 12 took Military Sciences and Hindi papers.

UP Boards 2024: Majority Students Were Satisfied With The Hindi Paper, Says Expert

Opaper

opaper

Beginners Guide to Writing Papers With Latex

Craig Wright's Bitcoin White Paper Document Questioned for Forgery

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 30 of 42. 28. Economics of BitCoin Nodes (Reliance Document) {ID_000227} / {L3/219/1} 523. The document purports to contain notes relating to “The Economics of central core BitCoin Nodes” and is dated as if it was created in the period September-October 2008. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 524. The document has been backdated. Within the document are several hidden embedded zip files containing references to Microsoft Schema dating from 2014-2015 which did not exist in 2008. These references are not visible to someone editing the document or reviewing its internal content without forensic analysis. [PM26 [16-17]]. 525. Equations within {ID_000227} were created with MathType software v6.9, a version dating from February 2013 which did not exist in 2008. [PM40 [32, 42]]. 526. The document contains redundant hidden content of previous edits which do not appear on the face of the document. [PM26 [19-20]]. 527. The hidden embedded text within the document includes references to a web page URL which did not exist until on or after 11 April 2019. [PM26 [21]]. 528. The reference to the 11 April 2019 URL has been deleted from the face of the document and replaced with a footnote which appears to be a “note to self” about what would need to be added in a future draft (“Note: I will need to link to laws such as the CFAA (USA) – see LLM[…]”). Other footnotes have been introduced or edited to refer to Bitcoin in the future tense. The misleading effect of these edits is to make the document appear as if it was created at a time before Bitcoin was created. In fact, the document was created later, after 11 April 2019, and the anachronistic content was obscured by editing. [PM26 [19-24]]. 529. The document was created from a precursor document after 11 April 2019. No precursor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM26 [23]]. 530. The document {ID_000227} has an implausible edit time of 20 days 19 hours and 22 minutes consistent with the use of clock manipulation techniques. [PM26 [6-10]]. 531. The document was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. The email contains several manipulated documents purported to be in the custody of Lynn Wright. The metadata of that zip file is also irregular. [{ID_003937}, PM26 [1, 25-38]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 532. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done by him in September / October 2008 which looked ahead to Bitcoin), contrary to fact. 533. Although the document metadata purports Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright after 11 April 2019, and a copy later sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email long after they were separated, contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright primarily relies. The metadata of that zip file is itself also irregular. [{ID_003927}, PM26 [1, 25-38]]. 534. Dr Wright shared a document with identical content on social media on 16 January 2020, contemporaneously with the aforesaid email to Lynn Wright. Upon request in these proceedings, Dr Wright has repeatedly declined to disclose a copy of his posts to social media accounts. Since the date of the Request, Dr Wright has claimed to have lost access to the relevant social media account. 535. The content introduced into the document, having the effect of making it appear to date from earlier than its true date, is phrased in the first person as a note from Dr Wright to himself. 536. In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence. 537. Dr Wright is recorded in the metadata as the first author. 538. Dr Wright has not disclosed the precursor documents [PM26 [23]]. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 539. Dr Wright sought to explain away the presence of anachronistic references to Mathtype software and Microsoft schemas by referring to the effects of his computing environment in supposedly causing such elements to be inserted into documents merely through a document being opened (without any user interaction): Wright11 Appendix B, [6.3 to 6.4]{CSW/2/20}. 540. Dr Wright sought to explain the presence of remnant text, including the URL in the footnote dating from 2019, by saying that text from another document had become merged with the text of this document as a result of features of his computing environment: Wright11 Appendix B, [6.5 to 6.6] {CSW/2/20}. He also suggested that the article at the URL had limited relevance to the material content of his document. 541. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 541.1. Dr Wright’s explanation is contradicted by the clear expert evidence of Mr Madden, which is that the Mathtype references and schema references could not be inserted without the document being interacted with by a user, which would in turn result in updating of the metadata timestamps of the document. The fact that the metadata timestamps for this document were dated to 2008 but the raw data contained the elements set out above shows that the document has been forged by backdating. See Madden4, [158]; Madden / Placks joint statement2 at [8]; {Day16/35:19} to {Day16/38:11}; {Day16/125:7} to {Day16/125:18}. 541.2. It is wildly implausible that the features of a shared computing environment would cause two documents to become merged, and to do so in a way which resulted in the document not being corrupted and appearing normal on its face. See Madden4, [159]; Madden / Placks joint statement2 at [8]. 541.3. In his evidence, Dr Wright tried to justify his position by going so far as to claim implausibly that any digital document more than a few years’ old could be expected to have anomalous features in its raw data. He claimed never to have seen a file older than five years which was pristine in metadata, before being compelled to accept that the Bitcoin White Paper is pristine {Day3/20:5} to {Day3/20:25}. 541.4. In his evidence, Dr Wright attempted to explain that the footnote in the edited version of the document was obviously more apt to the text than the footnote in the remnant text. In doing so, he put forward a bizarre interpretation of the Bitcoin system in which the availability of injunctive relief is supposedly essential to preventing subversion of the system: {Day3/7:18} to {Day3/15:16}. (d) Conclusion 542. The points on this document gathered in Appendix 1 to Dr Wright’s Closing repeat a number of points I have already found to be unconvincing in relation to {ID_000217} above and they are equally unconvincing here. Furthermore, the argument that this document is the result of text from another document becoming merged into the document is particularly absurd. The argument presupposes disk read errors such that a disk sector containing a portion of another document is merged into the saved version of this document but without any trace of corruption or discontinuity. 543. In short, I found Dr Wright’s explanations wholly unconvincing, especially in the light of the detailed specific points made by Mr Madden. This document was plainly forged, and forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 30 of 42. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 30 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 28. Economics of BitCoin Nodes (Reliance Document) {ID_000227} / {L3/219/1} 523. The document purports to contain notes relating to “The Economics of central core BitCoin Nodes” and is dated as if it was created in the period September-October 2008. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 524. The document has been backdated. Within the document are several hidden embedded zip files containing references to Microsoft Schema dating from 2014-2015 which did not exist in 2008. These references are not visible to someone editing the document or reviewing its internal content without forensic analysis. [PM26 [16-17]]. 525. Equations within {ID_000227} were created with MathType software v6.9, a version dating from February 2013 which did not exist in 2008. [PM40 [32, 42]]. 526. The document contains redundant hidden content of previous edits which do not appear on the face of the document. [PM26 [19-20]]. 527. The hidden embedded text within the document includes references to a web page URL which did not exist until on or after 11 April 2019. [PM26 [21]]. 528. The reference to the 11 April 2019 URL has been deleted from the face of the document and replaced with a footnote which appears to be a “note to self” about what would need to be added in a future draft (“Note: I will need to link to laws such as the CFAA (USA) – see LLM[…]”). Other footnotes have been introduced or edited to refer to Bitcoin in the future tense. The misleading effect of these edits is to make the document appear as if it was created at a time before Bitcoin was created. In fact, the document was created later, after 11 April 2019, and the anachronistic content was obscured by editing. [PM26 [19-24]]. 529. The document was created from a precursor document after 11 April 2019. No precursor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM26 [23]]. 530. The document {ID_000227} has an implausible edit time of 20 days 19 hours and 22 minutes consistent with the use of clock manipulation techniques. [PM26 [6-10]]. 531. The document was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. The email contains several manipulated documents purported to be in the custody of Lynn Wright. The metadata of that zip file is also irregular. [{ID_003937}, PM26 [1, 25-38]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 532. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done by him in September / October 2008 which looked ahead to Bitcoin), contrary to fact. 533. Although the document metadata purports Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright after 11 April 2019, and a copy later sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email long after they were separated, contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright primarily relies. The metadata of that zip file is itself also irregular. [{ID_003927}, PM26 [1, 25-38]]. 534. Dr Wright shared a document with identical content on social media on 16 January 2020, contemporaneously with the aforesaid email to Lynn Wright. Upon request in these proceedings, Dr Wright has repeatedly declined to disclose a copy of his posts to social media accounts. Since the date of the Request, Dr Wright has claimed to have lost access to the relevant social media account. 535. The content introduced into the document, having the effect of making it appear to date from earlier than its true date, is phrased in the first person as a note from Dr Wright to himself. 536. In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence. 537. Dr Wright is recorded in the metadata as the first author. 538. Dr Wright has not disclosed the precursor documents [PM26 [23]]. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 539. Dr Wright sought to explain away the presence of anachronistic references to Mathtype software and Microsoft schemas by referring to the effects of his computing environment in supposedly causing such elements to be inserted into documents merely through a document being opened (without any user interaction): Wright11 Appendix B, [6.3 to 6.4]{CSW/2/20}. 540. Dr Wright sought to explain the presence of remnant text, including the URL in the footnote dating from 2019, by saying that text from another document had become merged with the text of this document as a result of features of his computing environment: Wright11 Appendix B, [6.5 to 6.6] {CSW/2/20}. He also suggested that the article at the URL had limited relevance to the material content of his document. 541. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 541.1. Dr Wright’s explanation is contradicted by the clear expert evidence of Mr Madden, which is that the Mathtype references and schema references could not be inserted without the document being interacted with by a user, which would in turn result in updating of the metadata timestamps of the document. The fact that the metadata timestamps for this document were dated to 2008 but the raw data contained the elements set out above shows that the document has been forged by backdating. See Madden4, [158]; Madden / Placks joint statement2 at [8]; {Day16/35:19} to {Day16/38:11}; {Day16/125:7} to {Day16/125:18}. 541.2. It is wildly implausible that the features of a shared computing environment would cause two documents to become merged, and to do so in a way which resulted in the document not being corrupted and appearing normal on its face. See Madden4, [159]; Madden / Placks joint statement2 at [8]. 541.3. In his evidence, Dr Wright tried to justify his position by going so far as to claim implausibly that any digital document more than a few years’ old could be expected to have anomalous features in its raw data. He claimed never to have seen a file older than five years which was pristine in metadata, before being compelled to accept that the Bitcoin White Paper is pristine {Day3/20:5} to {Day3/20:25}. 541.4. In his evidence, Dr Wright attempted to explain that the footnote in the edited version of the document was obviously more apt to the text than the footnote in the remnant text. In doing so, he put forward a bizarre interpretation of the Bitcoin system in which the availability of injunctive relief is supposedly essential to preventing subversion of the system: {Day3/7:18} to {Day3/15:16}. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 542. The points on this document gathered in Appendix 1 to Dr Wright’s Closing repeat a number of points I have already found to be unconvincing in relation to {ID_000217} above and they are equally unconvincing here. Furthermore, the argument that this document is the result of text from another document becoming merged into the document is particularly absurd. The argument presupposes disk read errors such that a disk sector containing a portion of another document is merged into the saved version of this document but without any trace of corruption or discontinuity. 543. In short, I found Dr Wright’s explanations wholly unconvincing, especially in the light of the detailed specific points made by Mr Madden. This document was plainly forged, and forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

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

COPA 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

COPA Sues Craig Wright for Forging Bitcoin White Paper Metadata

COPA Presents Evidence of Bitcoin White Paper Fabrication by Craig Wright 

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 9 of 42. 7. Conversions to LaTeX using the 2022 version of Pandoc {ID_004648} {PTR-F/5/1} and {ID_004687} {L1/236/1} 149. These are two LaTeX source documents presented by Dr Wright as if they are precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper. {ID_004648} is presented as a draft or paper produced in his work on the MNSA programme at Charles Sturt University in 2004/5 P4/10/4, and it appears to be a paper on hash chains and security of voting. {ID_004687} is presented as an article on IT security with a face dating of June 2006 which refers to hash chains and Merkle trees (features of the Bitcoin system). (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 150. These are documents which were among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch Joint Report1 [12] Q/6/5]. 151. These documents have been backdated. They refer to LaTeX packages which were not released in 2007. In particular: 151.1. They specify code (‘\usepackage’) to use the package “selnolig”. Selnolig was not conceived of until 2011. It was not created until 2012-2013. It was not posted to the internet until May 2013 [Loretan1 [5], C/20/2]. They also refer to the package “xurl”, which had not been released at the stated dates of these documents [Madden3 [30] G/5/16]. 151.2. Selnolig requires a then-recent (2012-2013) version of LuaTeX to be used. [Loretan1 [6], C/20/2] 151.3. There was no previous package called ‘selnolig’. [Loretan1 [7], C/20/2] 152. These documents have been created with the Pandoc document conversion software. Pandoc is an open-source piece of software that can convert documents between different formats. It can generate LaTeX documents automatically [Macfarlane1 [3] C/19/1]. In particular: 152.1. {ID_004687} contains a line which states that it was created as LaTeX via Pandoc, which is characteristic of the use of Pandoc. [Macfarlane1 [5] C/19/1]. Although {ID_004648} does not include that line “LaTeX via Pandoc”, it includes the other code from the same October template. 152.2. The template for conversion to LaTeX was not introduced into Pandoc at all until 2010 [Macfarlane1 [5] C/19/1]. 153. The documents have been created during the course of these proceedings: 153.1. Inspection of the (open-source) source code of Pandoc allows for more precise dating. The document was created after October 2022. The version of Pandoc used for creation of this document uses code that was not committed to Pandoc until October 2022. [Macfarlane1 [9] C/19/2]. 153.2. October 2022 is after the commencement of these proceedings. 154. The documents were sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. These documents were added by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 155. The effect of the tampering is to create documents which appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 156. These documents were added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright, as explained in the section “BDOPC.raw” above. 157. The further effect of tampering is to lend support to Dr Wright’s new position that the Bitcoin White Paper was created in LaTeX, by providing other LaTeX documents alongside it. That story is a recent product of Dr Wright’s invention. 158. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to these documents: 158.1. Both are said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because they are “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper” [Wright 6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field 1, L20/223/4]. 158.2. {ID_004648} is said to be one of Dr Wright’s “drafts and papers written by Dr Wright during his Masters of Network and System Administration (MNSA) programme at Charles Sturt University, which he pursued between 2004 and 2005. These papers show an interest in the problems in distributed in distributed computing systems and considers solutions that are precursors to the consensusbased system that underpins Bitcoin." [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/4] 158.3. {ID_004687} is said to be a version of “a paper prepared for a 360º Security Summit on 15 June 2006 concerned with “Implementing Effective Risk-Based Controls”, which Dr Wright prepared in his role at BDO. The hash chain technology discussed in the paper is analogous to the blockchain technology used in Bitcoin." [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/5] 158.4. None of Dr Wright’s explanations above is compatible with the forensic evidence, and each is shown by that evidence to be false. 159. The documents were not disclosed at the proper time. They were disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 160. Dr Wright claimed that references to selnolig and xurl were present in these files because someone had accessed them at a later date. As for the inclusion of Pandoc, Dr Wright claimed that the words “pdfcreateor…LaTeX via pandoc” was not a Pandoc marker, and instead claimed that this was a manually added comment. Dr Wright claimed that there is no LaTeX compiler version known to him (including Overleaf) that adds that statement. He suggested that he understood how Pandoc worked better than its creator, Professor Macfarlane. He also again blamed Mr Ager-Hanssen for the presence of the references:{Day5/106:6} and following. 161. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 161.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 161.2. Dr Wright was compelled to accept that selnolig and xurl both postdate these the dates of these files. 161.3. Professor Macfarlane, creator of Pandoc, gave evidence (unchallenged) that the source commits he implemented dated the template for these documents to a template that was first made available at some point between March and October 2022. Macfarlane1 {C/19/2}. 161.4. No explanation was given by Dr Wright as to why a user would choose to write “LaTeX via pandoc” in the pdfcreator field. His excuse that someone would happen to add, for no reason, that a document was created by a genuine piece of software, simply makes no sense. Pandoc is a LaTeX convertor. There were also numerous other documents that had “pdfcreator = {LaTeX via pandoc}}” contained in them. 161.5. Dr Wright never mentioned that his documents had been accessed and manipulated in this way until his cross-examination. 161.6. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004648 & ID_004687 were manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

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

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

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 7 of 42. 5. “Project BlackNet” paper (Reliance Document) {ID_001379} / {L1/79/1} 100. This document purports to be a copy of a “Project BlackNet” research paper dated on its face to 3 October 2002. The document contains references to a “Stage 4 – Release Phase” and other textual amendments, referring to “Digital Cash”, as well as other features of purported relevance to Bitcoin. 101. This document includes the text of the BlackNet Abstract (see the section above) pleaded as a forgery in COPA’s Particulars of Claim [26-27], and dealt with in the preceding section. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 102. The document has been backdated [PM8 [60-61]. The document is dated on its face to 3 October 2002. However, the internal metadata for the document indicate that it was actually created on 17 February 2014. [PM8 [15]]. 103. The document is an edited version of an earlier document, into which passages of text have been inserted using text from the Bitcoin White Paper. [PM8 [23-33, 60.b.]]. 104. The document is apparently part of a series of documents, all of which carry similar content on their face, but which have been edited or are converted versions of the same file [PM8 [3]]. Some of those documents are consistent with a pattern of editing beginning with an earlier precursor document, and ending with a document which would be deployed as if it was original and authentic, in connection with Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. See in particular Mr Madden’s discussion of {ID_001016} as another backdated document in the sequence [PM8 [34-50]]. 105. The metadata indicates that the file was created using Microsoft Word 2013 as the PDF Producer. Microsoft Word 2013 was not yet published in 2002 (the date on the face of the document) but is contemporaneous for 2014. [PM8 [15]]. 106. The document was created in PDF form by printing to PDF from an underlying precursor DOC or .DOCX document on 17 February 2014 [PM8 [16]]. No such underlying precursor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 107. Dr Wright is listed in the metadata as the author of the document. 108. Dr Wright is listed on the face of the document as its first author. 109. Dr Wright is listed as the sole author in the ‘version control’ section of the document on page 2. 110. The document contains Dr Wright’s address and telephone number. 111. Dr Wright has positively asserted in these proceedings that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 112. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done by him in 2002, elements of which then appeared in the Bitcoin White Paper), contrary to fact. 113. Dr Wright has posted screenshots of this document or a very similar document on Twitter, apparently in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 114. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has claimed this to be a document related to the later Bitcoin White Paper and that it is original to the purported date on its face, contrary to fact. [Exhibit CSW 14]. 115. Dr Wright has relied on this document, or documents with similar content, in previous proceedings and in public in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 116. The metadata records “DeMorgan” as the company from which the document was created. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on his work on various projects from his time at DeMorgan, as part of his claim to have been working on the concepts behind the Bitcoin White Paper. [Wright1 [32-47]]. 117. The document was created in the time zone UTC+11, consistent with Dr Wright’s location in Australia in February 2014, being the date of creation of the document. [PM8 [18]]. 118. In his Defence in these proceedings, in public social media posts, and elsewhere, Dr Wright has repeatedly stated that the series of research papers (to which this document belongs) are related to the Bitcoin White Paper, and that later applications (submitted in 2009/2010) contained the abstract of the Bitcoin White Paper. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 119. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright accepted that this document was created by conversion of a document to PDF format in 2014. He claimed that this document was obtained from the computer of a former employee who had achieved unauthorised access to Dr Wright’s current wife’s email account, although he did not explain why that claim was relevant. He gave no coherent explanation for why a project paper supposedly prepared for an ITOL application in 2002 would be converted to PDF by an employee of one of his companies in 2014. See: {CSW/2/59} to {CSW/2/60}. 120. In his oral evidence, Dr Wright tried to explain away the fact that (a) authentic versions of this document describe an IT security project (involving an encrypted network), with no reference to any digital transaction system and (b) this version (among others) includes the content of the authentic versions but adds incongruous sections referring to a peer-to-peer digital transaction system involving transactions being structured into “an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work” to preclude double-spending or replay attacks. See {Day2/56:22} to {Day2/77:18}. Key aspects of his explanations and their deficiencies are addressed below. 121. This document is a forgery. Its content is not authentic to 2002, as Dr Wright claims it is. His attempts to explain away the indications of forgery should be rejected for the following reasons: 121.1. A version of this document in disclosure which Mr Madden has established as apparently authentic to 2002 ({ID000013}) is an internally coherent plan for an IT security system with three stages, in which the Stage 3 is described as the Final Phase and the budget covers three stages. It includes nothing about a digital transaction system, still less one involving a chain of hash-based proof-of-work. 121.2. Similarly, a project plan for this IT project which Dr Wright actually submitted to AusIndustry in 2003 has the same content as that apparently authentic document: {L1/113/1} [p8ff. Both the application form {L/113/3} and the project plan {L/113/8} were consistent in their description of the project. Neither says anything about a digital transaction system, still less one involving a chain of hash-based proof-of-work. 121.3. Even an apparently authentic version of the project plan in disclosure which dates to March 2009 {ID_001016} shows the project in the same terms, concluding with Stage 3 and including nothing about a digital currency system. 121.4. In this reliance document {ID_001379}, as in some other (similarly inauthentic) versions of the project plan in disclosure, Dr Wright has added an Abstract (at p4) which describes a digital transaction system similar to Bitcoin. The Abstract bears no obvious relation to the various other parts of the document, which are survivals of the authentic version, such as the Overall Objective section at p6 and the Assessment Against the Selection Criteria section at p8. Dr Wright has also added a few references to a Stage 4 involving the development of the supposed digital transaction system. However, he has forgotten to modify the budget on p11-12, which makes no financial provision for the supposed Stage 4 and still describes Stage 3 as the Final Phase. 121.5. In the Kleiman trial, Dr Wright said that parts of the Bitcoin White Paper went back to his “2002 AusIndustry filings for research and development”: see {L17/327/93}. When that evidence was put to him in this trial, he insisted that the document including the supposed Stage 4 elements of the project (involving a digital transaction system) “would have been filed [with AusIndustry] in 2002 and then in 2003”: {Day2/72:24}. That evidence was flatly contradicted by the actual AusIndustry filing from July 2003 (summarised above). 121.6. Dr Wright has attempted to account for these documents by a confused narrative of different versions of the document being in existence in 2002 and 2009 and used for different purposes, while the version control was in a state of chaos (see transcript reference above). The documents tell their own clear story: that Dr Wright produced an IT security project plan in 2002, which he used for tax concession applications, but he later (from 2014) doctored that plan to bolt on sections reflecting features of the Bitcoin system in order to promote his false claim to have been involved in creating that system. (d) Conclusion 122. I am entirely satisfied that the Project BlackNet paper was forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 7 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 7 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 5. “Project BlackNet” paper (Reliance Document) {ID_001379} / {L1/79/1} 100. This document purports to be a copy of a “Project BlackNet” research paper dated on its face to 3 October 2002. The document contains references to a “Stage 4 – Release Phase” and other textual amendments, referring to “Digital Cash”, as well as other features of purported relevance to Bitcoin. 101. This document includes the text of the BlackNet Abstract (see the section above) pleaded as a forgery in COPA’s Particulars of Claim [26-27], and dealt with in the preceding section. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 102. The document has been backdated [PM8 [60-61]. The document is dated on its face to 3 October 2002. However, the internal metadata for the document indicate that it was actually created on 17 February 2014. [PM8 [15]]. 103. The document is an edited version of an earlier document, into which passages of text have been inserted using text from the Bitcoin White Paper. [PM8 [23-33, 60.b.]]. 104. The document is apparently part of a series of documents, all of which carry similar content on their face, but which have been edited or are converted versions of the same file [PM8 [3]]. Some of those documents are consistent with a pattern of editing beginning with an earlier precursor document, and ending with a document which would be deployed as if it was original and authentic, in connection with Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. See in particular Mr Madden’s discussion of {ID_001016} as another backdated document in the sequence [PM8 [34-50]]. 105. The metadata indicates that the file was created using Microsoft Word 2013 as the PDF Producer. Microsoft Word 2013 was not yet published in 2002 (the date on the face of the document) but is contemporaneous for 2014. [PM8 [15]]. 106. The document was created in PDF form by printing to PDF from an underlying precursor DOC or .DOCX document on 17 February 2014 [PM8 [16]]. No such underlying precursor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 107. Dr Wright is listed in the metadata as the author of the document. 108. Dr Wright is listed on the face of the document as its first author. 109. Dr Wright is listed as the sole author in the ‘version control’ section of the document on page 2. 110. The document contains Dr Wright’s address and telephone number. 111. Dr Wright has positively asserted in these proceedings that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 112. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done by him in 2002, elements of which then appeared in the Bitcoin White Paper), contrary to fact. 113. Dr Wright has posted screenshots of this document or a very similar document on Twitter, apparently in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 114. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has claimed this to be a document related to the later Bitcoin White Paper and that it is original to the purported date on its face, contrary to fact. [Exhibit CSW 14]. 115. Dr Wright has relied on this document, or documents with similar content, in previous proceedings and in public in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 116. The metadata records “DeMorgan” as the company from which the document was created. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on his work on various projects from his time at DeMorgan, as part of his claim to have been working on the concepts behind the Bitcoin White Paper. [Wright1 [32-47]]. 117. The document was created in the time zone UTC+11, consistent with Dr Wright’s location in Australia in February 2014, being the date of creation of the document. [PM8 [18]]. 118. In his Defence in these proceedings, in public social media posts, and elsewhere, Dr Wright has repeatedly stated that the series of research papers (to which this document belongs) are related to the Bitcoin White Paper, and that later applications (submitted in 2009/2010) contained the abstract of the Bitcoin White Paper. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 119. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright accepted that this document was created by conversion of a document to PDF format in 2014. He claimed that this document was obtained from the computer of a former employee who had achieved unauthorised access to Dr Wright’s current wife’s email account, although he did not explain why that claim was relevant. He gave no coherent explanation for why a project paper supposedly prepared for an ITOL application in 2002 would be converted to PDF by an employee of one of his companies in 2014. See: {CSW/2/59} to {CSW/2/60}. 120. In his oral evidence, Dr Wright tried to explain away the fact that (a) authentic versions of this document describe an IT security project (involving an encrypted network), with no reference to any digital transaction system and (b) this version (among others) includes the content of the authentic versions but adds incongruous sections referring to a peer-to-peer digital transaction system involving transactions being structured into “an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work” to preclude double-spending or replay attacks. See {Day2/56:22} to {Day2/77:18}. Key aspects of his explanations and their deficiencies are addressed below. 121. This document is a forgery. Its content is not authentic to 2002, as Dr Wright claims it is. His attempts to explain away the indications of forgery should be rejected for the following reasons: 121.1. A version of this document in disclosure which Mr Madden has established as apparently authentic to 2002 ({ID000013}) is an internally coherent plan for an IT security system with three stages, in which the Stage 3 is described as the Final Phase and the budget covers three stages. It includes nothing about a digital transaction system, still less one involving a chain of hash-based proof-of-work. 121.2. Similarly, a project plan for this IT project which Dr Wright actually submitted to AusIndustry in 2003 has the same content as that apparently authentic document: {L1/113/1} [p8ff. Both the application form {L/113/3} and the project plan {L/113/8} were consistent in their description of the project. Neither says anything about a digital transaction system, still less one involving a chain of hash-based proof-of-work. 121.3. Even an apparently authentic version of the project plan in disclosure which dates to March 2009 {ID_001016} shows the project in the same terms, concluding with Stage 3 and including nothing about a digital currency system. 121.4. In this reliance document {ID_001379}, as in some other (similarly inauthentic) versions of the project plan in disclosure, Dr Wright has added an Abstract (at p4) which describes a digital transaction system similar to Bitcoin. The Abstract bears no obvious relation to the various other parts of the document, which are survivals of the authentic version, such as the Overall Objective section at p6 and the Assessment Against the Selection Criteria section at p8. Dr Wright has also added a few references to a Stage 4 involving the development of the supposed digital transaction system. However, he has forgotten to modify the budget on p11-12, which makes no financial provision for the supposed Stage 4 and still describes Stage 3 as the Final Phase. 121.5. In the Kleiman trial, Dr Wright said that parts of the Bitcoin White Paper went back to his “2002 AusIndustry filings for research and development”: see {L17/327/93}. When that evidence was put to him in this trial, he insisted that the document including the supposed Stage 4 elements of the project (involving a digital transaction system) “would have been filed [with AusIndustry] in 2002 and then in 2003”: {Day2/72:24}. That evidence was flatly contradicted by the actual AusIndustry filing from July 2003 (summarised above). 121.6. Dr Wright has attempted to account for these documents by a confused narrative of different versions of the document being in existence in 2002 and 2009 and used for different purposes, while the version control was in a state of chaos (see transcript reference above). The documents tell their own clear story: that Dr Wright produced an IT security project plan in 2002, which he used for tax concession applications, but he later (from 2014) doctored that plan to bolt on sections reflecting features of the Bitcoin system in order to promote his false claim to have been involved in creating that system. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 122. I am entirely satisfied that the Project BlackNet paper was forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

So, About That BlackNet Paper... Looks Like It’s Not from 2002 After All

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 6 of 42. 4. The BlackNet Abstract (Particulars of Claim at [26]-[27] {A/2/9}) The Second Pleaded Example C00000917 89. On 10 February 2019, Dr Wright published a picture of an abstract on Twitter regarding a project entitled ‘BlackNet’ which he asserts is an early iteration of the Bitcoin White Paper (the “BlackNet Abstract”). This abstract published by Dr Wright appears to describe a Peer-to-Peer transaction system for sending “online consideration” without the use of a central intermediary. Dr Wright asserts that the BlackNet Abstract was written in 2001 and submitted to the Australian Government. 90. There are various copies of Dr Wright’s Tweet in the bundles. The pleaded document (as I understand it) is {L14/294/1} {C00000917}: 91. In this image, the text of the Abstract is cut off at the left and right margins. However the image of the Abstract was also accessed {L14/294/1}: 92. This exact wording is included in ID_001379 and the cover page of ID_001379 appears to be similar to the cover page shown in C00000917. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 93. The BlackNet Abstract is copied from the abstract of the Bitcoin White Paper. The abstract in the Draft Bitcoin White Paper from August 2008 was corrected and amended before it was finally published as the Bitcoin White Paper in October 2008. The BlackNet Abstract, despite Wright’s assertions that it was written in 2001, contains the corrections made between August 2008 and October 2008 and entered into the Bitcoin White Paper. Accordingly, COPA allege that the BlackNet Abstract is a copy of the abstract of the Bitcoin White Paper (i.e. the one published in October 2008 which contains the corrections made between August 2008 and October 2008) and is therefore not a document which predates either the Draft Bitcoin White Paper or the Bitcoin White Paper. (b) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 94. Dr Wright has accepted that the BlackNet Abstract was not taken from a document written in 2001. He claims that (a) he first submitted his BlackNet paper to AusIndustry in 2001 in applications for a research grant and tax rebate; (b) he successfully obtained rebates from 2001 to 2009; (c) he later made unsuccessful applications for grants and rebates in 2009 and 2010; (d) he updated the BlackNet paper on each occasion; and (e) the image of the BlackNet Abstract which he posted on Twitter in February 2019 was that used for one of the later applications. He claims that his Twitter post did not represent that the BlackNet Abstract was something he had written in 2001. See Defence [44-46] {A/3/16} and Appendix C to Wright11 {CSW/3/5}. 95. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected, for the following reasons: 95.1. The Twitter post {L14/294/1} stated: “My stupidest mistake was going to the Australian Government in 2001 and filing this shit”. Below the message were images of the front page of the BlackNet paper and the BlackNet Abstract. The plain meaning of the post was that Dr Wright had filed the paper below, including the abstract shown, with the Australian Government in 2001 (not that he had filed a paper without that abstract in 2001 and a paper with that abstract in 2009 and 2010). In his evidence at trial, Dr Wright could only answer this point by saying: “I’m better with code than with words. So if you think that, that’s the problem” {Day2/92:6}. 95.2. Other images in the Tweet (those headed “Approval by the company…” and “R&D Project Plan”) were plainly intended to show parts of the filing. Each prominently includes a date of 23 October 2001, thus reinforcing the message that the filing was made in 2001 and that all the images in the Tweet relate to the filing. 95.3. The clear implication of the message was that Dr Wright had revealed his supposed involvement in creating Bitcoin to the Australian authorities in 2001 (a role which the abstract would have made clear) and that he now regretted having done so. 95.4. Dr Wright’s account in his Defence on this point is at odds with accounts he has given elsewhere about the versions of the BlackNet paper which he filed with the Australian authorities at different times. In the Kleiman proceedings, he claimed that his filings with AusIndustry in 2002 (not only those in 2009/10) contained reference to elements of the Bitcoin system {L17/327/93}. In these proceedings, Dr Wright told the Court in his oral evidence that the versions of his BlackNet paper which contained reference to elements of the Bitcoin system (i.e. the supposed Stage 4 of the project) were first filed in 2002 and 2003 {Day2/72:24}. All versions of the paper in disclosure which included reference to elements of the Bitcoin system contained the BlackNet Abstract. Accordingly, there is a stark contrast between (i) his repeated evidence that he first filed versions of the paper including reference to elements of the Bitcoin system in 2002; and (ii) his account in the Defence that he first did this in 2009/10 (an account given in an effort to answer the issue raised in the Particulars of Claim about the content of the BlackNet Abstract). 95.5. The cover page of the supposed BlackNet Paper in the Tweet, pictured directly above the abstract is identified as Version 1.0, thus undermining Dr Wright’s suggestion that the abstract related to a late version of the paper. Furthermore, the cover page is identical to a version of the document which Dr Wright now claims was written in 2002 ({ID_001379} – addressed in the next section). 96. An additional reason why Dr Wright’s explanation is not true comes from the comments in response to his Tweet, some of which are included in the version at L14/195. One particular comment was: ‘Woww. Blacknet is from 2002? Whitepaper same as Bitcoin? Many years you were pregnant to give birth to this beautiful baby (Bitcoin as SV) Looks like Satoshi ‘stole’ your idea lol.’ 97. Dr Wright responded by saying: ‘Yes. Funny that Oh. This is a formal Ausindustry project. I did underestimate a….lot’. 98. His comment is direct contemporaneous confirmation that COPA’s allegation (that the plain meaning of the post was that Dr Wright had filed the paper, including the abstract shown, with the Australian Government in 2001/2) is true. Conclusion 99. The BlackNet Abstract was plainly copied from the Bitcoin White Paper. Furthermore, Dr Wright’s explanation that it dated, not from 2002, but from 2009/2010 was false. 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 6 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 6 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 4. The BlackNet Abstract (Particulars of Claim at [26]-[27] {A/2/9}) The Second Pleaded Example C00000917 89. On 10 February 2019, Dr Wright published a picture of an abstract on Twitter regarding a project entitled ‘BlackNet’ which he asserts is an early iteration of the Bitcoin White Paper (the “BlackNet Abstract”). This abstract published by Dr Wright appears to describe a Peer-to-Peer transaction system for sending “online consideration” without the use of a central intermediary. Dr Wright asserts that the BlackNet Abstract was written in 2001 and submitted to the Australian Government. 90. There are various copies of Dr Wright’s Tweet in the bundles. The pleaded document (as I understand it) is {L14/294/1} {C00000917}: 91. In this image, the text of the Abstract is cut off at the left and right margins. However the image of the Abstract was also accessed {L14/294/1}: 92. This exact wording is included in ID_001379 and the cover page of ID_001379 appears to be similar to the cover page shown in C00000917. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 93. The BlackNet Abstract is copied from the abstract of the Bitcoin White Paper. The abstract in the Draft Bitcoin White Paper from August 2008 was corrected and amended before it was finally published as the Bitcoin White Paper in October 2008. The BlackNet Abstract, despite Wright’s assertions that it was written in 2001, contains the corrections made between August 2008 and October 2008 and entered into the Bitcoin White Paper. Accordingly, COPA allege that the BlackNet Abstract is a copy of the abstract of the Bitcoin White Paper (i.e. the one published in October 2008 which contains the corrections made between August 2008 and October 2008) and is therefore not a document which predates either the Draft Bitcoin White Paper or the Bitcoin White Paper. (b) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (b) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 94. Dr Wright has accepted that the BlackNet Abstract was not taken from a document written in 2001. He claims that (a) he first submitted his BlackNet paper to AusIndustry in 2001 in applications for a research grant and tax rebate; (b) he successfully obtained rebates from 2001 to 2009; (c) he later made unsuccessful applications for grants and rebates in 2009 and 2010; (d) he updated the BlackNet paper on each occasion; and (e) the image of the BlackNet Abstract which he posted on Twitter in February 2019 was that used for one of the later applications. He claims that his Twitter post did not represent that the BlackNet Abstract was something he had written in 2001. See Defence [44-46] {A/3/16} and Appendix C to Wright11 {CSW/3/5}. 95. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected, for the following reasons: 95.1. The Twitter post {L14/294/1} stated: “My stupidest mistake was going to the Australian Government in 2001 and filing this shit”. Below the message were images of the front page of the BlackNet paper and the BlackNet Abstract. The plain meaning of the post was that Dr Wright had filed the paper below, including the abstract shown, with the Australian Government in 2001 (not that he had filed a paper without that abstract in 2001 and a paper with that abstract in 2009 and 2010). In his evidence at trial, Dr Wright could only answer this point by saying: “I’m better with code than with words. So if you think that, that’s the problem” {Day2/92:6}. 95.2. Other images in the Tweet (those headed “Approval by the company…” and “R&D Project Plan”) were plainly intended to show parts of the filing. Each prominently includes a date of 23 October 2001, thus reinforcing the message that the filing was made in 2001 and that all the images in the Tweet relate to the filing. 95.3. The clear implication of the message was that Dr Wright had revealed his supposed involvement in creating Bitcoin to the Australian authorities in 2001 (a role which the abstract would have made clear) and that he now regretted having done so. 95.4. Dr Wright’s account in his Defence on this point is at odds with accounts he has given elsewhere about the versions of the BlackNet paper which he filed with the Australian authorities at different times. In the Kleiman proceedings, he claimed that his filings with AusIndustry in 2002 (not only those in 2009/10) contained reference to elements of the Bitcoin system {L17/327/93}. In these proceedings, Dr Wright told the Court in his oral evidence that the versions of his BlackNet paper which contained reference to elements of the Bitcoin system (i.e. the supposed Stage 4 of the project) were first filed in 2002 and 2003 {Day2/72:24}. All versions of the paper in disclosure which included reference to elements of the Bitcoin system contained the BlackNet Abstract. Accordingly, there is a stark contrast between (i) his repeated evidence that he first filed versions of the paper including reference to elements of the Bitcoin system in 2002; and (ii) his account in the Defence that he first did this in 2009/10 (an account given in an effort to answer the issue raised in the Particulars of Claim about the content of the BlackNet Abstract). 95.5. The cover page of the supposed BlackNet Paper in the Tweet, pictured directly above the abstract is identified as Version 1.0, thus undermining Dr Wright’s suggestion that the abstract related to a late version of the paper. Furthermore, the cover page is identical to a version of the document which Dr Wright now claims was written in 2002 ({ID_001379} – addressed in the next section). 96. An additional reason why Dr Wright’s explanation is not true comes from the comments in response to his Tweet, some of which are included in the version at L14/195. One particular comment was: ‘Woww. Blacknet is from 2002? Whitepaper same as Bitcoin? Many years you were pregnant to give birth to this beautiful baby (Bitcoin as SV) Looks like Satoshi ‘stole’ your idea lol.’ 97. Dr Wright responded by saying: ‘Yes. Funny that Oh. This is a formal Ausindustry project. I did underestimate a….lot’. 98. His comment is direct contemporaneous confirmation that COPA’s allegation (that the plain meaning of the post was that Dr Wright had filed the paper, including the abstract shown, with the Australian Government in 2001/2) is true. Conclusion Conclusion 99. The BlackNet Abstract was plainly copied from the Bitcoin White Paper. Furthermore, Dr Wright’s explanation that it dated, not from 2002, but from 2009/2010 was false. 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

Did Craig Wright Repurpose Bitcoin White Paper for Project 'BlackNet' ?

Court Reveals Craig Wright's Bitcoin White Paper LaTeX Files as Recent Forgeries

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 4 of 42. 3. The LATEX files: Main.tex and E-Cash-main.tex (i) Dr Wright’s main LaTeX file “main.tex”, “Candidate L” {H/340/1} 56. This file is a LaTeX source file, taken from a folder on Dr Wright’s Overleaf account. Dr Wright has stated that, as Satoshi Nakamoto, he wrote the Bitcoin White Paper using LaTeX. He has also stated that this document “uniquely codes for the Bitcoin White Paper”, and that when compiled in Overleaf, produce a copy of the Bitcoin White Paper “in the same form as” and “materially identical to” that published by Satoshi Nakamoto. [Wright 6 E/21/3; Field 1 [27] P3/13/10] 57. Among all his LaTeX files, Dr Wright has nominated this file in particular as the source file that he relies on to compile the Bitcoin White Paper itself (Shoosmiths’ fourth letter of 4 January 2024 M/2/802). This file is Candidate L in Mr Rosendahl’s report. 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 4 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 4 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 3. The LATEX files: Main.tex and E-Cash-main.tex (i) Dr Wright’s main LaTeX file “main.tex”, “Candidate L” {H/340/1} 56. This file is a LaTeX source file, taken from a folder on Dr Wright’s Overleaf account. Dr Wright has stated that, as Satoshi Nakamoto, he wrote the Bitcoin White Paper using LaTeX. He has also stated that this document “uniquely codes for the Bitcoin White Paper”, and that when compiled in Overleaf, produce a copy of the Bitcoin White Paper “in the same form as” and “materially identical to” that published by Satoshi Nakamoto. [Wright 6 E/21/3; Field 1 [27] P3/13/10] 57. Among all his LaTeX files, Dr Wright has nominated this file in particular as the source file that he relies on to compile the Bitcoin White Paper itself (Shoosmiths’ fourth letter of 4 January 2024 M/2/802). This file is Candidate L in Mr Rosendahl’s report. 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 OPAPER

Opaper’s Stories on HackerNoon

Opaper's News & Mentions