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

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.