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 34 of 42. 32. “BitCoin: SEIR-C Propagation models of block and transaction dissemination” (Reliance Document) {ID_000550} / {L3/237/1} 622. The document purports to be precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper, dated 12 December 2008. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 623. The document has been backdated. It is an altered version of a document actually published by Dr Wright in 2017 (the “2017 SSRN Paper”). [PM1 [25-38] and [55]]. 624. The document contains hidden, embedded Grammarly timestamps indicating its true date to be 15 April 2017 or later. [PM1 [48-53]]. 625. The Grammarly software did not exist in 2008 [Madden1 [62c]] but is contemporaneous for 2017. [Madden1 [70-72]]. 626. {ID_000550} contains hidden, embedded traces of the 2017 SSRN paper, indicating that both are derived from a common source document. [PM1 [25-33]]. 627. The content referred to in the hidden, embedded traces of the 2017 SSRN paper includes news articles and government publications which did not yet exist in 2008 but which are contemporaneous for 2017. [PM1 [19-21] and [55]]. 628. The document contains equations and formulae which have been corrupted in a manner consistent with conversion from a more modern format to an older format [PM1 [34-45]. The document includes tampered content that apparently represents an attempt to explain away this problem as the result of using older equation-editing MathType software. However, analysis indicates that equations in the document were in fact authored with much later version of that software, which did not yet exist in 2008 but which are contemporaneous to 2017. [PM40 [22-42]]. 629. The document contains references to Microsoft schemas which did not yet exist in 2008 but are contemporaneous to 2010 onwards (including 2017). [PM1 [46-47]]. 630. The document includes anachronistic references to events that had not occurred by 2008 but which had occurred by 2017 [PM1 [21-22]]. 631. The internal metadata records an anomalous edit time in excess of 70 days and the editing period of this document overlaps with several other documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure, consistent with being created using clock manipulation techniques. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 632. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting academic work done by Dr Wright in his supposed development of Bitcoin), contrary to fact. 633. Dr Wright has positively asserted that {ID_000550} is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 634. Dr Wright is recorded as an author of the metadata. The doctored content is phrased by Dr Wright in the first person: “Note- I have released online as an anonymous programmer using the pseudonym "Satoshi Nakamoto". 635. Dr Wright is a user of Grammarly software. 636. {ID_000550} contains hidden text embedded within the document which contradicts the information presented on the face of the document, a characteristic of manipulation of a series of MS Word .DOC files found throughout Dr Wright’s disclosure in these proceedings. 637. The 2017 SSRN Paper is a version of the same document that was published on the SSRN website by Dr Wright himself, bearing a “date written” of 28 March 2017. The “date written” is contemporaneous with the hidden Grammarly timestamp in {ID_000550} and not to the purported date of the document. 638. The metadata of the 2017 SSRN Paper lists “craig” as the creator of the document. 639. {ID_000550} contains hidden, embedded traces of the 2017 SSRN paper, indicating that both are derived from a common source document. 640. Dr Wright has not disclosed the 2017 SSRN paper or the common source document. 641. 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 642. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright attempted to explain the presence of embedded text showing a remnant version which referred to Bitcoin as an existing system and included various references to events after 2008 (including for instance to a report of May 2013). He claimed that these references were added “as a result of the corruption of the document, probably while it was kept at nChain or one of the other corporations”: {CSW/2/54}. In cross-examination, he claimed that two documents became merged into one another as a result of both being open at the same time on a Citrix environment and an edit not happening correctly on one of them: {Day2/135:1} to {Day2/138:19}. 643. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright sought to explain away the presence of the anachronistic Grammarly timestamps, the references to Mathtype software dating from 2017 and references to Microsoft schemas dating from 2010 and later by saying that they resulted from “someone in nChain opening the document in 2017 or later” and these elements becoming embedded: {CSW/2/53}; {Day2/143:1} to {Day2/143:23}. It is inherent in that explanation that these elements could become embedded without the person saving or otherwise interacting with the document (since such interaction would cause the metadata timestamps to update). 644. When pressed in cross-examination with the point that the remnant text in the document matches text in a 2017 version of the document uploaded by Dr Wright to the SSRN website, Dr Wright could give no coherent answer. When further pressed that this reliance document contains clear signs of corrupted equations (which appear properly readable in the SSRN version), thus suggesting errors resulting from conversion, he likewise failed to give any intelligible answer. See {Day2/140:7} to {Day2/142:25}. 645. Dr Wright also claimed that the references to CheckBlockHeader, UTXO and Bitcoin Core in this document were there because he used them. {Day2/134:14} to {Day2/140:5} 646. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 646.1. It presupposes that the features of a shared computing environment would cause two documents to become merged, with remnant text added in the way seen here, but in a manner which resulted in the document not being corrupted and appearing normal on its face. This possibility is rejected by the independent expert evidence. See Madden4, [159]; Madden / Placks joint statement 2 at [8]. 646.2. Dr Wright’s explanation for the presence of anachronistic artefacts in the metadata (including the anachronistic Grammarly timestamps, the references to Mathtype software dating from 2017 and references to Microsoft schemas dating from 2010 and later) is contradicted by the clear expert evidence of Mr Madden, which is that such 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 (notably the “last saved” timestamp). The fact that the metadata timestamps for this document were dated to 2008 but the document contains 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}. 646.3. The correspondence between parts of the hidden remnant text of this document and the 2017 SSRN version of the document can only rationally be explained by this document being a copy forged and backdated in recent years. 646.4. This conclusion is further reinforced by the corrupted equations, which are clearly indicative of a document having been converted from a later version of MS Word into an older format which does not support the correct font or automatically applies an incorrect text editing format: see PM1 [44] {H/1/19}. 646.5. The anachronistic terms Dr Wright says he used are not found in other genuine documents before their first use. These first uses were as follows: 646.5.1. CheckBlockHeader was first introduced into the code in March 2014, Wuille1 [25] {C1/1/6}; 646.5.2. Bitcoin Core was first introduced in version 0.9 of the software in 2014 Wuille1 [50] {C1/1/12}; and 646.5.3. UTXO first introduced in version 0.8 of the software by Mr Wuille, with him first seeing the term on 21 June 2012 Wuille1 [29-32] {C1/1/7}. (d) Conclusion 647. In addition to COPA’s submissions in this section, I also refer to [737]-[759] in the main Judgment, all of which demonstrate that the points gathered in Appendix 1 to Dr Wright’s Closing in relation to this document do not begin to explain all the indications of forgery set out above. Dr Wright plainly forged this document from the 2017 SSRN paper. 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 34 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 34 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 32. “BitCoin: SEIR-C Propagation models of block and transaction dissemination” (Reliance Document) {ID_000550} / {L3/237/1} 622. The document purports to be precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper, dated 12 December 2008. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 623. The document has been backdated. It is an altered version of a document actually published by Dr Wright in 2017 (the “2017 SSRN Paper”). [PM1 [25-38] and [55]]. 624. The document contains hidden, embedded Grammarly timestamps indicating its true date to be 15 April 2017 or later. [PM1 [48-53]]. 625. The Grammarly software did not exist in 2008 [Madden1 [62c]] but is contemporaneous for 2017. [Madden1 [70-72]]. 626. {ID_000550} contains hidden, embedded traces of the 2017 SSRN paper, indicating that both are derived from a common source document. [PM1 [25-33]]. 627. The content referred to in the hidden, embedded traces of the 2017 SSRN paper includes news articles and government publications which did not yet exist in 2008 but which are contemporaneous for 2017. [PM1 [19-21] and [55]]. 628. The document contains equations and formulae which have been corrupted in a manner consistent with conversion from a more modern format to an older format [PM1 [34-45]. The document includes tampered content that apparently represents an attempt to explain away this problem as the result of using older equation-editing MathType software. However, analysis indicates that equations in the document were in fact authored with much later version of that software, which did not yet exist in 2008 but which are contemporaneous to 2017. [PM40 [22-42]]. 629. The document contains references to Microsoft schemas which did not yet exist in 2008 but are contemporaneous to 2010 onwards (including 2017). [PM1 [46-47]]. 630. The document includes anachronistic references to events that had not occurred by 2008 but which had occurred by 2017 [PM1 [21-22]]. 631. The internal metadata records an anomalous edit time in excess of 70 days and the editing period of this document overlaps with several other documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure, consistent with being created using clock manipulation techniques. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 632. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting academic work done by Dr Wright in his supposed development of Bitcoin), contrary to fact. 633. Dr Wright has positively asserted that {ID_000550} is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 634. Dr Wright is recorded as an author of the metadata. The doctored content is phrased by Dr Wright in the first person: “Note- I have released online as an anonymous programmer using the pseudonym "Satoshi Nakamoto". 635. Dr Wright is a user of Grammarly software. 636. {ID_000550} contains hidden text embedded within the document which contradicts the information presented on the face of the document, a characteristic of manipulation of a series of MS Word .DOC files found throughout Dr Wright’s disclosure in these proceedings. 637. The 2017 SSRN Paper is a version of the same document that was published on the SSRN website by Dr Wright himself, bearing a “date written” of 28 March 2017. The “date written” is contemporaneous with the hidden Grammarly timestamp in {ID_000550} and not to the purported date of the document. 638. The metadata of the 2017 SSRN Paper lists “craig” as the creator of the document. 639. {ID_000550} contains hidden, embedded traces of the 2017 SSRN paper, indicating that both are derived from a common source document. 640. Dr Wright has not disclosed the 2017 SSRN paper or the common source document. 641. 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 642. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright attempted to explain the presence of embedded text showing a remnant version which referred to Bitcoin as an existing system and included various references to events after 2008 (including for instance to a report of May 2013). He claimed that these references were added “as a result of the corruption of the document, probably while it was kept at nChain or one of the other corporations”: {CSW/2/54}. In cross-examination, he claimed that two documents became merged into one another as a result of both being open at the same time on a Citrix environment and an edit not happening correctly on one of them: {Day2/135:1} to {Day2/138:19}. 643. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright sought to explain away the presence of the anachronistic Grammarly timestamps, the references to Mathtype software dating from 2017 and references to Microsoft schemas dating from 2010 and later by saying that they resulted from “someone in nChain opening the document in 2017 or later” and these elements becoming embedded: {CSW/2/53}; {Day2/143:1} to {Day2/143:23}. It is inherent in that explanation that these elements could become embedded without the person saving or otherwise interacting with the document (since such interaction would cause the metadata timestamps to update). 644. When pressed in cross-examination with the point that the remnant text in the document matches text in a 2017 version of the document uploaded by Dr Wright to the SSRN website, Dr Wright could give no coherent answer. When further pressed that this reliance document contains clear signs of corrupted equations (which appear properly readable in the SSRN version), thus suggesting errors resulting from conversion, he likewise failed to give any intelligible answer. See {Day2/140:7} to {Day2/142:25}. 645. Dr Wright also claimed that the references to CheckBlockHeader, UTXO and Bitcoin Core in this document were there because he used them. {Day2/134:14} to {Day2/140:5} 646. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 646.1. It presupposes that the features of a shared computing environment would cause two documents to become merged, with remnant text added in the way seen here, but in a manner which resulted in the document not being corrupted and appearing normal on its face. This possibility is rejected by the independent expert evidence. See Madden4, [159]; Madden / Placks joint statement 2 at [8]. 646.2. Dr Wright’s explanation for the presence of anachronistic artefacts in the metadata (including the anachronistic Grammarly timestamps, the references to Mathtype software dating from 2017 and references to Microsoft schemas dating from 2010 and later) is contradicted by the clear expert evidence of Mr Madden, which is that such 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 (notably the “last saved” timestamp). The fact that the metadata timestamps for this document were dated to 2008 but the document contains 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}. 646.3. The correspondence between parts of the hidden remnant text of this document and the 2017 SSRN version of the document can only rationally be explained by this document being a copy forged and backdated in recent years. 646.4. This conclusion is further reinforced by the corrupted equations, which are clearly indicative of a document having been converted from a later version of MS Word into an older format which does not support the correct font or automatically applies an incorrect text editing format: see PM1 [44] {H/1/19}. 646.5. The anachronistic terms Dr Wright says he used are not found in other genuine documents before their first use. These first uses were as follows: 646.5.1. CheckBlockHeader was first introduced into the code in March 2014, Wuille1 [25] {C1/1/6}; CheckBlockHeader 646.5.2. Bitcoin Core was first introduced in version 0.9 of the software in 2014 Wuille1 [50] {C1/1/12}; and Bitcoin Core 646.5.3. UTXO first introduced in version 0.8 of the software by Mr Wuille, with him first seeing the term on 21 June 2012 Wuille1 [29-32] {C1/1/7}. UTXO (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 647. In addition to COPA’s submissions in this section, I also refer to [737]-[759] in the main Judgment, all of which demonstrate that the points gathered in Appendix 1 to Dr Wright’s Closing in relation to this document do not begin to explain all the indications of forgery set out above. Dr Wright plainly forged this document from the 2017 SSRN paper. 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

Crypto Open Patent Alliance Finds Evidence of Tampering in Wright's Claim to be Bitcoin Founder

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

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

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

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps