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 17 of 42. 15. “Internal Controls…Backend Operations” {ID_004733} {PTR-F/90/1} 298. The is an RTF file titled “Internal Controls and Immutable Logging in Auditing Backend Operations of Messaging Systems.rtf”. Dr Wright has relied upon it as showing interest in / research on the concept of immutable logging which he claims influenced his development of Bitcoin. By its presence in BDOPC.raw, the document purports to predate 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 299. This document is 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 / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 300. The document has been backdated. It is a Rich Text File created with the editor version Riched20.dll v10.0.19041. That version of Riched20 is the version associated with the May 2020 update of Windows 10. [Madden3 [86-91] G/5/34] [PM46 [149] H/278/53] 301. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted version of this document to the disclosed version shows that this document did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. It was 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. 302. The modifications included: 302.1. altering the metadata of the file to make it appear to have been created earlier than it actually was [PM46 [146]]; and 302.2. deleting a reference to “The Data Protection Act 2018” and replacing it with the words “data protection law globally” [PM46 [147] H/278/52]. 303. The Data Protection Act 2018 did not exist in 2007. 304. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 305. 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. 306. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. Paragraph 45 of the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 307. The document was not disclosed at the proper time. It was 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. 308. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 308.1. It is said to be among Dr Wright’s “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper" [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/4] 308.2. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is a “paper titled “Internal Controls and Immutable Logging in Auditing Backend Operations of Messaging Systems”. The concept of immutable logging discussed in this paper connect Dr Wright’s earlier research on hash chains with the blockchain technology that underpins Bitcoin.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/7] (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 309. Dr Wright again claimed that the BDO Drive had been hacked, which he said explained the fact that the document was authored in a version of Window Text Editor dating from 2020. In relation to the deletions between the versions disclosed as the reliance document and the version on InfoDef09.raw, Dr Wright claimed that the removal of “Data Protection Act 2018” from the precursor document on InfoDef09.raw to be replaced by “data protection law globally…” arose because it referred to Sarbanes-Oxley in America. He disputed that this change showed the direction of editing: {Day5/100:8} and following. 310. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 310.1. 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. 310.2. The removal of “Data Protection Act 2018” from what was plainly the precursor document on InfoDef09.raw, to be replaced by “data protection law globally…”, clearly indicates a document which had been written at a later date being changed to remove what would be anachronisms. 310.3. Dr Wright’s excuse about someone using Word to create a document and then changing the format does not make any sense in the circumstances or explain the irregularities. 310.4. The use of a version of Windows Text Editor dating from 2020 shows these documents were not contemporaneous to the alleged time capsule. 310.5. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_000473 was 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 17 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 17 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 15. “Internal Controls…Backend Operations” {ID_004733} {PTR-F/90/1} 298. The is an RTF file titled “Internal Controls and Immutable Logging in Auditing Backend Operations of Messaging Systems.rtf”. Dr Wright has relied upon it as showing interest in / research on the concept of immutable logging which he claims influenced his development of Bitcoin. By its presence in BDOPC.raw, the document purports to predate 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 299. This document is 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 / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 300. The document has been backdated. It is a Rich Text File created with the editor version Riched20.dll v10.0.19041. That version of Riched20 is the version associated with the May 2020 update of Windows 10. [Madden3 [86-91] G/5/34] [PM46 [149] H/278/53] 301. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted version of this document to the disclosed version shows that this document did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. It was 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. 302. The modifications included: 302.1. altering the metadata of the file to make it appear to have been created earlier than it actually was [PM46 [146]]; and 302.2. deleting a reference to “The Data Protection Act 2018” and replacing it with the words “data protection law globally” [PM46 [147] H/278/52]. 303. The Data Protection Act 2018 did not exist in 2007. 304. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw 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 305. 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. 306. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. Paragraph 45 of the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 307. The document was not disclosed at the proper time. It was 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. 308. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 308.1. It is said to be among Dr Wright’s “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper" [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/4] “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper" 308.2. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is a “paper titled “Internal Controls and Immutable Logging in Auditing Backend Operations of Messaging Systems”. The concept of immutable logging discussed in this paper connect Dr Wright’s earlier research on hash chains with the blockchain technology that underpins Bitcoin.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/7] “paper titled “Internal Controls and Immutable Logging in Auditing Backend Operations of Messaging Systems”. The concept of immutable logging discussed in this paper connect Dr Wright’s earlier research on hash chains with the blockchain technology that underpins Bitcoin.” (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 309. Dr Wright again claimed that the BDO Drive had been hacked, which he said explained the fact that the document was authored in a version of Window Text Editor dating from 2020. In relation to the deletions between the versions disclosed as the reliance document and the version on InfoDef09.raw, Dr Wright claimed that the removal of “Data Protection Act 2018” from the precursor document on InfoDef09.raw to be replaced by “data protection law globally…” arose because it referred to Sarbanes-Oxley in America. He disputed that this change showed the direction of editing: {Day5/100:8} and following. 310. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 310.1. 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. 310.2. The removal of “Data Protection Act 2018” from what was plainly the precursor document on InfoDef09.raw, to be replaced by “data protection law globally…”, clearly indicates a document which had been written at a later date being changed to remove what would be anachronisms. 310.3. Dr Wright’s excuse about someone using Word to create a document and then changing the format does not make any sense in the circumstances or explain the irregularities. 310.4. The use of a version of Windows Text Editor dating from 2020 shows these documents were not contemporaneous to the alleged time capsule. 310.5. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_000473 was 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

Discrepancies Found in Craig Wright’s Document on Immutable Logging: COPA Alleges Tampering

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

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps