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

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 18 of 42. 16. “NG3.tex” and related files {ID_004715} {PTR-F/72/1}, {ID_004716} {PTR-F/73/1}, {ID_004719} {PTR-F/76/1} 311. Dr Wright disclosed a set of LaTeX files (including {ID_004716} and {ID_004719} titled as “Section2.tex”, “Section4.tex”, among others). These apparently constitute sections of one document (NG3.tex, which is {ID_004715}). NG3.tex is a LaTeX source document titled “An In-depth Analysis of Proof-of-Work Calculations in the Hashcoin White Paper”. That document presents as if it was a paper building on calculations in the “Hashcoin” or “TimeChain white paper” and purports to represent work on the Bitcoin system and/or Bitcoin related concepts. 312. This group of three documents is taken together as representative of that set. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 313. These documents are among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch Joint Report [12] Q/6/5]. 314. The documents have been backdated. 315. The content of {ID_004715} was written by ChatGPT. In particular: 315.1. A deleted file containing part of the content of {ID_004715} was recovered from InfoDef09.raw. The file was named “Section7.tex”: [PM46 [92-99] H/278/25]. The content of the deleted “Section7.tex” begins with the words: “Certainly, here’s the LaTeX code for Section 7, which covers Recommendations. ``` LaTeX 315.2. The content of the deleted “Section7.tex” ends with the words: ‘This section presents a set of recommendations based on the research findings, targeting both practitioners and academic researchers. The citations are…’ 315.3. That content is entirely consistent with and indicative of responses provided by an un-conditioned ChatGPT to the question “Are you able to output some template LaTeX code for section 7 which relates to recommendations?” including the structure, length of response, the use of “Certainly”, and the use of syntax “``` LaTeX” to introduce LaTeX code. [PM46 [92-99] H/278/25] 315.4. That content was deleted from the version of the equivalent document disclosed within BDOPC.raw. {ID_004715} however does include the proposed code generated by ChatGPT within the body of the document. 315.5. ChatGPT did not exist in 2007. 316. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted versions of these documents to the disclosed versions shows that they did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. They were modified within BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. [Madden4 [133-135] G/6/41] 317. The modifications made in September 2023 included: 317.1. In respect of {ID_004716}, editing a past-tense reference to “the original Bitcoin white paper”, so that it was modified into a future-tense reference to “the proposed timecoin system”. [PM46 [89] H/278/23] 317.2. In respect of {ID_004719}, editing a past-tense reference to “Bitcoin” to read as a reference to “Timecoin”; and adding other text [PM46 [90] H/278/24]. 317.3. In respect of other parts of {ID_004715}, changing the purported authorship date from 2008 to 2007, and changing references to the “original Bitcoin white paper” to “Time Chain” or “Hashcoin” white paper. [PM46 [82] H/278/19]. 318. The metadata of these documents has been manipulated in order to make them appear to have been created at an earlier date than their true creation date. [PM46 [86-88] H/278/22] 319. 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 320. 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. 321. 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 change in his account. 322. These documents were added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. Paragraph 45 of the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 323. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to these documents: 323.1. NG3.tex is said to be one of Dr Wright’s “LaTeX files which, when compiled, generate draft articles under the pseudonym “Satoshi” or “Satoshi Nakamoto” relating to concepts later used in the Bitcoin White Paper." [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/3] 323.2. NG3.tex is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it “is a LaTeX file coding for an article titled: “An In-depth Analysis of Proof-of-Work Calculations in the Hashcoin White Paper: Exploring Alternative Strategies”, which comments on concepts similar to the concepts in the Bitcoin Whitepaper, such as proof-ofwork in decentralised digital transactions. The article refers to a hashcoin white paper. The author is stated to be “Satoshi Nakamoto” and the article bears the date 15 September 2007.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/3] 323.3. The Sections documents are said to be a version of “LaTeX files which, when compiled, generate sections of the “Timecoin” white paper”, meaning {ID_000254} [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/3]. However, it is believed that this is an error, since the Sections documents do not form part of any version of that paper. It is believed that Dr Wright relies upon them as forming part of NG3.tex, to which he attaches importance for the reasons given above. 324. 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 325. Dr Wright claimed that InfoDef09.raw was in fact created as a copy of the BDO Drive image. He asserted that the presence of versions of these documents on InfoDef09.raw was because “someone [was] trying to ensure that there is manipulated evidence on these drives” {Day 8/2:20}. He then went to implicate Bird & Bird, saying that he had web cookies showing that access in September 2023 from an IP address associated with Bird & Bird, but did also note that it could have been someone stood outside their office as the Bird & Bird Wi-Fi is open. He claimed he had reported this use of the Bird & Bird Wi-Fi. 326. As for the use of ChatGPT, Dr Wright claimed that similarities between his work and ChatGPT arose because ChatGPT has copied his work, and not the other way around. {Day5/90:14} 327. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 327.1. 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. 327.2. The expert evidence shows that the InfoDef09.raw contained versions of these documents that were worked on and then deleted before being seeded on the BDO Drive. 327.3. The suggestion that someone hacked and manipulated the BDO Drive and left a deleted set of files which appear to be draft versions of files that would eventually be disclosed by Dr Wright would mean that the individual would have to have guessed what files were going to be nominated, and that Dr Wright would indeed seek to rely on these in court. 327.4. His allegation that an IP address associated with Bird & Bird was involved in the hack is absurd and without any support in evidence. The Bird & Bird Wi-Fi is not public, as was put to Dr Wright (and as he did not dispute). 327.5. His story about knowing that the Bird & Bird Wi-Fi was used contradicts his evidence in other places about how he did not know how or by whom he was hacked in relation to the BDO Drive (subject to his suspicion of Mr AgerHanssen). There is no evidence to support this very serious lie, and there is also no evidence of his claimed report that he made about that IP address. 327.6. Dr Wright does not account for the fact that the indications of ChatGPT use were not solely based on similarity of output between ChatGPT and his own documents (though this was one similarity) but that the prompts and use of certain terms/punctuation that appears in ChatGPT answers appeared in Dr Wright’s work. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Dr Wright’s material was ever fed into any AI algorithm (whether ChatGPT or otherwise). 327.7. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004715, ID_004716 and ID_004719 were manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 18 of 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 18 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 16. “NG3.tex” and related files {ID_004715} {PTR-F/72/1}, {ID_004716} {PTR-F/73/1}, {ID_004719} {PTR-F/76/1} 311. Dr Wright disclosed a set of LaTeX files (including {ID_004716} and {ID_004719} titled as “Section2.tex”, “Section4.tex”, among others). These apparently constitute sections of one document (NG3.tex, which is {ID_004715}). NG3.tex is a LaTeX source document titled “An In-depth Analysis of Proof-of-Work Calculations in the Hashcoin White Paper”. That document presents as if it was a paper building on calculations in the “Hashcoin” or “TimeChain white paper” and purports to represent work on the Bitcoin system and/or Bitcoin related concepts. 312. This group of three documents is taken together as representative of that set. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 313. These documents are among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch Joint Report [12] Q/6/5]. 314. The documents have been backdated. 315. The content of {ID_004715} was written by ChatGPT. In particular: 315.1. A deleted file containing part of the content of {ID_004715} was recovered from InfoDef09.raw. The file was named “Section7.tex”: [PM46 [92-99] H/278/25]. The content of the deleted “Section7.tex” begins with the words: “Certainly, here’s the LaTeX code for Section 7, which covers Recommendations. ``` LaTeX 315.2. The content of the deleted “Section7.tex” ends with the words: ‘This section presents a set of recommendations based on the research findings, targeting both practitioners and academic researchers. The citations are…’ 315.3. That content is entirely consistent with and indicative of responses provided by an un-conditioned ChatGPT to the question “Are you able to output some template LaTeX code for section 7 which relates to recommendations?” including the structure, length of response, the use of “Certainly”, and the use of syntax “``` LaTeX” to introduce LaTeX code. [PM46 [92-99] H/278/25] 315.4. That content was deleted from the version of the equivalent document disclosed within BDOPC.raw. {ID_004715} however does include the proposed code generated by ChatGPT within the body of the document. 315.5. ChatGPT did not exist in 2007. 316. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted versions of these documents to the disclosed versions shows that they did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. They were modified within BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. [Madden4 [133-135] G/6/41] 317. The modifications made in September 2023 included: 317.1. In respect of {ID_004716}, editing a past-tense reference to “the original Bitcoin white paper”, so that it was modified into a future-tense reference to “the proposed timecoin system”. [PM46 [89] H/278/23] 317.2. In respect of {ID_004719}, editing a past-tense reference to “Bitcoin” to read as a reference to “Timecoin”; and adding other text [PM46 [90] H/278/24]. 317.3. In respect of other parts of {ID_004715}, changing the purported authorship date from 2008 to 2007, and changing references to the “original Bitcoin white paper” to “Time Chain” or “Hashcoin” white paper. [PM46 [82] H/278/19]. 318. The metadata of these documents has been manipulated in order to make them appear to have been created at an earlier date than their true creation date. [PM46 [86-88] H/278/22] 319. 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 320. 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. 321. 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 change in his account. 322. These documents were added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. Paragraph 45 of the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 323. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to these documents: 323.1. NG3.tex is said to be one of Dr Wright’s “LaTeX files which, when compiled, generate draft articles under the pseudonym “Satoshi” or “Satoshi Nakamoto” relating to concepts later used in the Bitcoin White Paper." [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/3] “LaTeX files which, when compiled, generate draft articles under the pseudonym “Satoshi” or “Satoshi Nakamoto” relating to concepts later used in the Bitcoin White Paper." 323.2. NG3.tex is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it “is a LaTeX file coding for an article titled: “An In-depth Analysis of Proof-of-Work Calculations in the Hashcoin White Paper: Exploring Alternative Strategies”, which comments on concepts similar to the concepts in the Bitcoin Whitepaper, such as proof-ofwork in decentralised digital transactions. The article refers to a hashcoin white paper. The author is stated to be “Satoshi Nakamoto” and the article bears the date 15 September 2007.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/3] “is a LaTeX file coding for an article titled: “An In-depth Analysis of Proof-of-Work Calculations in the Hashcoin White Paper: Exploring Alternative Strategies”, which comments on concepts similar to the concepts in the Bitcoin Whitepaper, such as proof-ofwork in decentralised digital transactions. The article refers to a hashcoin white paper. The author is stated to be “Satoshi Nakamoto” and the article bears the date 15 September 2007.” 323.3. The Sections documents are said to be a version of “LaTeX files which, when compiled, generate sections of the “Timecoin” white paper” , meaning {ID_000254} [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/3]. However, it is believed that this is an error, since the Sections documents do not form part of any version of that paper. It is believed that Dr Wright relies upon them as forming part of NG3.tex, to which he attaches importance for the reasons given above. “LaTeX files which, when compiled, generate sections of the “Timecoin” white paper” 324. 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 325. Dr Wright claimed that InfoDef09.raw was in fact created as a copy of the BDO Drive image. He asserted that the presence of versions of these documents on InfoDef09.raw was because “someone [was] trying to ensure that there is manipulated evidence on these drives” {Day 8/2:20}. He then went to implicate Bird & Bird, saying that he had web cookies showing that access in September 2023 from an IP address associated with Bird & Bird, but did also note that it could have been someone stood outside their office as the Bird & Bird Wi-Fi is open. He claimed he had reported this use of the Bird & Bird Wi-Fi. 326. As for the use of ChatGPT, Dr Wright claimed that similarities between his work and ChatGPT arose because ChatGPT has copied his work, and not the other way around. {Day5/90:14} 327. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 327.1. 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. 327.2. The expert evidence shows that the InfoDef09.raw contained versions of these documents that were worked on and then deleted before being seeded on the BDO Drive. 327.3. The suggestion that someone hacked and manipulated the BDO Drive and left a deleted set of files which appear to be draft versions of files that would eventually be disclosed by Dr Wright would mean that the individual would have to have guessed what files were going to be nominated, and that Dr Wright would indeed seek to rely on these in court. 327.4. His allegation that an IP address associated with Bird & Bird was involved in the hack is absurd and without any support in evidence. The Bird & Bird Wi-Fi is not public, as was put to Dr Wright (and as he did not dispute). 327.5. His story about knowing that the Bird & Bird Wi-Fi was used contradicts his evidence in other places about how he did not know how or by whom he was hacked in relation to the BDO Drive (subject to his suspicion of Mr AgerHanssen). There is no evidence to support this very serious lie, and there is also no evidence of his claimed report that he made about that IP address. 327.6. Dr Wright does not account for the fact that the indications of ChatGPT use were not solely based on similarity of output between ChatGPT and his own documents (though this was one similarity) but that the prompts and use of certain terms/punctuation that appears in ChatGPT answers appeared in Dr Wright’s work. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Dr Wright’s material was ever fed into any AI algorithm (whether ChatGPT or otherwise). 327.7. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004715, ID_004716 and ID_004719 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