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 23 of 42. 21. OpenOffice 2.4 document (Reliance Document) {ID_000260} / {L2/294/1} 400. The document purports to be a precursor to the Bitcoin White Paper and is presented as if written by Dr Wright. It is dated 8-9 March 2008 in its metadata and Dr Wright states it to be from 2008 in his evidence in these proceedings. [Exhibit CSW-14] (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 401. The document contains language taken from the Bitcoin White Paper, but the document has been backdated as if to make it appear earlier than it is. [PM23 [41-45]]. 402. The document purports to have been created on 8 March 2008 and last saved on 9 March 2008 using OpenOffice.org version 2.4 with internal version number 680m12$Build9286. However, this version of OpenOffice.org was not uploaded for use until 16 March 2008 and was not generally released until 27 March 2008, both of which post-date the purported date of {ID_000260}. [PM23 [3, 6, 10, 24-34, 44]]. 403. Further, in addition to not being uploaded until 16 March 2008, the software in question (OpenOffice.org 2.4 680m12$Build-9286) was not even in development until after 14 March 2008. [PM23 [35-40]]. 404. The document contains content imported from an external document or documents. No external document has been disclosed. [PM23 [41c]]. 405. The document has an implausible edit time, matching precisely the time between its created and last saved timestamp. [PM23 [14-18]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 406. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting a precursor document to the Bitcoin White Paper, supposedly prepared in early 2008), contrary to fact. 407. Further, the document has been created using the same software (OpenOffice.org) and same version (version 2.4) as used by Satoshi Nakamoto to write all versions of the Bitcoin White Paper, indicating an intention to create a document within Dr Wright’s possession with the appearance of being a predecessor. [PM3 [23, 40, and 47]]. 408. Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 409. In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 410. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright sought to explain away the fact of this document being created with a version of OpenOffice that was issued after its supposed creation date by saying that he created the document in LATEX on 8/9 March 2008 but set the metadata using LATEX “so that it looks like I wrote this document in the future.” He explained this odd behaviour by saying that he had “taught the process of using versioning in this way to demonstrate aspects of making a determination about a document difficult to students in 2008 to 2012”. See {CSW/2/33}. 411. He sought to explain away the indications that the document had imported content (including from the Bitcoin White Paper, supposedly written a year later) by saying that it was a function of the document having been created in LATEX and then recompiled later. See {CSW/2/34}. 412. He sought to explain away the implausible editing time by saying that it was a result of him using the Sweave program with LATEX, which (as he believed) caused metadata time fields to be updated with re-compilations. See {CSW/2/34}. 413. This explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 413.1. Dr Wright has disclosed no LATEX original of this document. It is inherently implausible that he would recall the production of such an original 15 years on without having a copy. 413.2. His story of setting the metadata to make the document misleadingly appear to have been created later is at odds with his evidence in the Kleiman proceedings that: “I do not manipulate metadata on things for any purpose”: {L15/131/71}. 413.3. His story of using this document in 2008 as a demonstration tool for students is one which beggars belief. It presupposes that, having made substantial efforts to remain anonymous, the real Satoshi used a document relating to his prospective Bitcoin project as a demonstration tool for students, when he could have used any other document to make the point. 413.4. In his oral evidence, Dr Wright was driven to answer this point by claiming that he had been quite open about his identity as Satoshi, revealing that identity to many, many people, including the tax office in Australia, government officials, “individuals at companies I knew” as well as “my students” (all unnamed, save for reference to Shoaib Yousuf and David Bridges, who were clear that Dr Wright had not revealed himself as Satoshi to them before the public revelation in 2015/16): {Day3/43:19} to {Day3/45:8}. This was not only implausible, but also at odds with his evidence in the Kleiman proceedings, where he told the Court that only Don Lynam and Gareth Williams knew his identity as Satoshi by early 2011: {L15/125/102}. 413.5. Dr Wright’s story also requires his explanation of the signs of imported content and of the implausible edit time to be accepted, despite their being unsupported by any independent expert evidence. (d) Conclusion 414. Dr Wright’s explanations show how he builds lie upon lie in his attempt to explain away Mr Madden’s convincing analysis which wholly supports COPA’s submissions and case. I find this document was plainly forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 23 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 23 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 21. OpenOffice 2.4 document (Reliance Document) {ID_000260} / {L2/294/1} 400. The document purports to be a precursor to the Bitcoin White Paper and is presented as if written by Dr Wright. It is dated 8-9 March 2008 in its metadata and Dr Wright states it to be from 2008 in his evidence in these proceedings. [Exhibit CSW-14] (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 401. The document contains language taken from the Bitcoin White Paper, but the document has been backdated as if to make it appear earlier than it is. [PM23 [41-45]]. 402. The document purports to have been created on 8 March 2008 and last saved on 9 March 2008 using OpenOffice.org version 2.4 with internal version number 680m12$Build9286. However, this version of OpenOffice.org was not uploaded for use until 16 March 2008 and was not generally released until 27 March 2008, both of which post-date the purported date of {ID_000260}. [PM23 [3, 6, 10, 24-34, 44]]. 403. Further, in addition to not being uploaded until 16 March 2008, the software in question (OpenOffice.org 2.4 680m12$Build-9286) was not even in development until after 14 March 2008. [PM23 [35-40]]. 404. The document contains content imported from an external document or documents. No external document has been disclosed. [PM23 [41c]]. 405. The document has an implausible edit time, matching precisely the time between its created and last saved timestamp. [PM23 [14-18]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 406. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting a precursor document to the Bitcoin White Paper, supposedly prepared in early 2008), contrary to fact. 407. Further, the document has been created using the same software (OpenOffice.org) and same version (version 2.4) as used by Satoshi Nakamoto to write all versions of the Bitcoin White Paper, indicating an intention to create a document within Dr Wright’s possession with the appearance of being a predecessor. [PM3 [23, 40, and 47]]. 408. Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 409. In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 410. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright sought to explain away the fact of this document being created with a version of OpenOffice that was issued after its supposed creation date by saying that he created the document in LATEX on 8/9 March 2008 but set the metadata using LATEX “so that it looks like I wrote this document in the future.” He explained this odd behaviour by saying that he had “taught the process of using versioning in this way to demonstrate aspects of making a determination about a document difficult to students in 2008 to 2012”. See {CSW/2/33}. 411. He sought to explain away the indications that the document had imported content (including from the Bitcoin White Paper, supposedly written a year later) by saying that it was a function of the document having been created in LATEX and then recompiled later. See {CSW/2/34}. 412. He sought to explain away the implausible editing time by saying that it was a result of him using the Sweave program with LATEX, which (as he believed) caused metadata time fields to be updated with re-compilations. See {CSW/2/34}. 413. This explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 413.1. Dr Wright has disclosed no LATEX original of this document. It is inherently implausible that he would recall the production of such an original 15 years on without having a copy. 413.2. His story of setting the metadata to make the document misleadingly appear to have been created later is at odds with his evidence in the Kleiman proceedings that: “I do not manipulate metadata on things for any purpose”: {L15/131/71}. 413.3. His story of using this document in 2008 as a demonstration tool for students is one which beggars belief. It presupposes that, having made substantial efforts to remain anonymous, the real Satoshi used a document relating to his prospective Bitcoin project as a demonstration tool for students, when he could have used any other document to make the point. 413.4. In his oral evidence, Dr Wright was driven to answer this point by claiming that he had been quite open about his identity as Satoshi, revealing that identity to many, many people, including the tax office in Australia, government officials, “individuals at companies I knew” as well as “my students” (all unnamed, save for reference to Shoaib Yousuf and David Bridges, who were clear that Dr Wright had not revealed himself as Satoshi to them before the public revelation in 2015/16): {Day3/43:19} to {Day3/45:8}. This was not only implausible, but also at odds with his evidence in the Kleiman proceedings, where he told the Court that only Don Lynam and Gareth Williams knew his identity as Satoshi by early 2011: {L15/125/102}. 413.5. Dr Wright’s story also requires his explanation of the signs of imported content and of the implausible edit time to be accepted, despite their being unsupported by any independent expert evidence. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 414. Dr Wright’s explanations show how he builds lie upon lie in his attempt to explain away Mr Madden’s convincing analysis which wholly supports COPA’s submissions and case. I find this document was plainly forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

Two Emails, One Controversy: Unravelling Craig Wright’s Correspondence with David Kleiman 

COPA Presents Evidence of Bitcoin White Paper Fabrication by Craig Wright 

Too Long; Didn't Read

Get Free Unlimited IP Geo Data With IPinfo Lite

Craig Wright Accused of Forging Early Bitcoin Document with Modern Software

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

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

Did Craig Wright Fake His Supposed Bitcoin Meeting Notes?

How Craig Wright Wrote Himself into a Forgery Charge

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

How Forensic Experts Exposed Dr. Wright’s Alleged Document Forgery

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

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

Did Craig Wright Fake His Supposed Bitcoin Meeting Notes?

How Craig Wright Wrote Himself into a Forgery Charge

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

How Forensic Experts Exposed Dr. Wright’s Alleged Document Forgery

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps