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 36 of 42. 34. Converted Code2Flow source code flowchart (Reliance Document) {ID_000554} / {L3/326/1} 61. This is the second document which relates to the Bitcoin Source Code. The document is described by Dr Wright as maps of the Bitcoin Source Code. The document contains a date on its face of 9 June 2008, which is before the release of the Bitcoin White Paper or the Bitcoin Software by Satoshi Nakamoto. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 662. The document is a monochrome (pure black and white) picture file, in a format and encoding consistent with a fax transmission or low-quality scan of a physical document. However, the document has been electronically created by conversion from a PDF. [PM10 [5-9]]. 663. {ID_000554} has its origin in a PDF document, {ID_000375}. [PM10 [10-21]]. 664. The document has been backdated. [PM10 [74]]. 665. ID_00375, (the original document from which {ID_000554} was created), reveals that the specific parts of the text required to support Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi (title and year of creation) are encoded within the PDF metadata differently to the other parts of the text (page number, day, and month), consistent with having been added at a different time by different means [PM10 [24-31]]. This indication of tampering has been removed from Dr Wright’s Reliance Document {ID_000554} by the process of conversion to a low-quality picture file. 666. The internal, raw metadata content of {ID_000375} contains embedded fonts bearing copyright statements dating them to 2015 or later. [PM10 [34]]. 667. The internal metadata of {ID_000375} contains hidden embedded metadata streams indicating that the original title of the file was “code2flow – online interactive code to flowchart converter” which was edited to read “bitcoin main.h”. [PM10 [36, 41]]. 668. The online Code2Flow software used to create these flowcharts did not exist in 2008 but was created at some time after 2012. [PM10 [42-47]]. 669. The PDF document {ID_000375} (the origin document for {ID_000554}) was created with XMP Core software which did not exist in 2008, and which dates the document to February 2016 or later. [PM10 [39]]. 670. {ID_000375} (the origin document for {ID_000554}) was created with a PDF Producer software “Acrobat Distiller 15.0 for Windows” which did not exist in 2008 but which date to November 2015 or later. [PM10 [48-54]]. 671. The above indications of tampering were removed from Dr Wright’s Reliance Document ID_00554 by means of converting it to a low-quality picture file. 672. The content of the manipulation and the origination of the timestamps in question is consistent with the use of clock manipulation. [PM10 [71-74]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 673. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. a map of the Bitcoin Source Code supposedly prepared in June 2008 and in the possession of Dr Wright), contrary to fact. 674. Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 675. Dr Wright has chosen to rely in these proceedings on this document, which is stripped of relevant metadata by reason of its creation process. Dr Wright has chosen not to rely on the equivalent PDF digital document which is the apparent predecessor, which contains clearer details and which contains both relevant metadata and reveals indicia of tampering. 676. {ID_000554}, Dr Wright’s Reliance Document, contains no legible text or colour, and is blurred by conversion, rendering it impossible to relate to the underlying PDF by text searching or other means other than by visual comparison and subsequent corroboration. [PM10 [10-13]]. 677. Dr Wright (craig.wright) is recorded as the author in the metadata of the document from which {ID_000554} was created. 678. Although other documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure bear similar hallmarks to {ID_000554} (including {ID_000553}, another Reliance Document), Dr Wright has not disclosed their equivalent underlying PDFs. 679. 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 680. Despite this document being one of Dr Wright’s primary reliance documents, he stated in Appendix B to Wright11 that he could not recall how it was created or even whether “this is my original document or something other people have used.” He sought to explain away the findings summarised above by denying that the PDF document {ID_000375} was the source for this document {ID_000554}. He claimed that the PDF document {ID_000375} had been created after 2012/13 by unidentified “employees of DeMorgan Ltd”, and that the two documents were thus unrelated. See {CSW/2/55}. He repeated this explanation in his oral evidence: {Day4/31:11} to {Day4/37:14}. 681. Dr Wright sought to explain the finding that the PDF document {ID_000375} had internal raw metadata indicating that its previous title had been the standard template title for a document created with a code2flow online conversion tool created in 2012. As well as claiming that that document was not the source of {ID_000554}, he also suggested that previous tools existed which he could have used to create that document in its current form in 2008. See: {Day4/41:18} to {Day4/42:12}. 682. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 682.1. Dr Wright’s attempt to deny that the PDF document {ID_000375} is the source for the TIFF document {ID_000554} is implausible. It is obvious from visual comparison of the two documents that, although the latter is less legible, both depict an absolutely identical code structure, a point which Dr Wright was compelled to admit in his oral evidence {Day4/34:13}. In addition, both have the same header (BitCoin main.h) and the same footer (1 of 1 // 9/06/2008 11:24). Furthermore, there is no other document in the disclosure which could qualify as a source for the TIFF document {ID_000554}. 682.2. Dr Wright has been driven by the forensic findings to accept that {ID_000375} was created years after 2008, despite that document (in his disclosure) having a face date of 2008. He has sought to distance the two documents from each other (despite all their similarities) for the obvious purpose of avoiding the natural conclusion that {ID_000554} was created from {ID_000375} years after 2008. 682.3. Dr Wright’s explanation does not account for the signs of backdating of the source document, {ID_000375}, which are set out in PM10 [22-41 {H/63/9}, including (i) the document title and footer date having the year (08) being encoded differently from the other parts of the footer (indicating manipulation); and (ii) the internal created and modified metadata indicating creation of the document in 2008 (despite it now being common ground that the document was created years later). If this document was simply created by DeMorgan employees some time after 2015, and there was no intention to create a backdated forgery, it is impossible to see why these findings would appear. 682.4. Dr Wright has provided no documentary or witness evidence to back up his account that DeMorgan employees created the PDF document {ID_000375}. If he really can remember that that document was created for a distinct purpose by DeMorgan employees, it is surprising that he cannot identify (still less call as a witness) the person who supposedly created it. 682.5. Dr Wright had previously given an account of the creation of this document in Chain of Custody information which Mr Madden conclusively debunked in PM43 [69-74 {H/219/28}. (d) Conclusion 683. I found COPA’s arguments to be entirely convincing. This was another clumsy forgery 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 36 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 36 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 34. Converted Code2Flow source code flowchart (Reliance Document) {ID_000554} / {L3/326/1} 61. This is the second document which relates to the Bitcoin Source Code. The document is described by Dr Wright as maps of the Bitcoin Source Code. The document contains a date on its face of 9 June 2008, which is before the release of the Bitcoin White Paper or the Bitcoin Software by Satoshi Nakamoto. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 662. The document is a monochrome (pure black and white) picture file, in a format and encoding consistent with a fax transmission or low-quality scan of a physical document. However, the document has been electronically created by conversion from a PDF. [PM10 [5-9]]. 663. {ID_000554} has its origin in a PDF document, {ID_000375}. [PM10 [10-21]]. 664. The document has been backdated. [PM10 [74]]. 665. ID_00375, (the original document from which {ID_000554} was created), reveals that the specific parts of the text required to support Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi (title and year of creation) are encoded within the PDF metadata differently to the other parts of the text (page number, day, and month), consistent with having been added at a different time by different means [PM10 [24-31]]. This indication of tampering has been removed from Dr Wright’s Reliance Document {ID_000554} by the process of conversion to a low-quality picture file. 666. The internal, raw metadata content of {ID_000375} contains embedded fonts bearing copyright statements dating them to 2015 or later. [PM10 [34]]. 667. The internal metadata of {ID_000375} contains hidden embedded metadata streams indicating that the original title of the file was “code2flow – online interactive code to flowchart converter” which was edited to read “bitcoin main.h”. [PM10 [36, 41]]. 668. The online Code2Flow software used to create these flowcharts did not exist in 2008 but was created at some time after 2012. [PM10 [42-47]]. 669. The PDF document {ID_000375} (the origin document for {ID_000554}) was created with XMP Core software which did not exist in 2008, and which dates the document to February 2016 or later. [PM10 [39]]. 670. {ID_000375} (the origin document for {ID_000554}) was created with a PDF Producer software “Acrobat Distiller 15.0 for Windows” which did not exist in 2008 but which date to November 2015 or later. [PM10 [48-54]]. 671. The above indications of tampering were removed from Dr Wright’s Reliance Document ID_00554 by means of converting it to a low-quality picture file. 672. The content of the manipulation and the origination of the timestamps in question is consistent with the use of clock manipulation. [PM10 [71-74]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 673. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. a map of the Bitcoin Source Code supposedly prepared in June 2008 and in the possession of Dr Wright), contrary to fact. 674. Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 675. Dr Wright has chosen to rely in these proceedings on this document, which is stripped of relevant metadata by reason of its creation process. Dr Wright has chosen not to rely on the equivalent PDF digital document which is the apparent predecessor, which contains clearer details and which contains both relevant metadata and reveals indicia of tampering. 676. {ID_000554}, Dr Wright’s Reliance Document, contains no legible text or colour, and is blurred by conversion, rendering it impossible to relate to the underlying PDF by text searching or other means other than by visual comparison and subsequent corroboration. [PM10 [10-13]]. 677. Dr Wright (craig.wright) is recorded as the author in the metadata of the document from which {ID_000554} was created. 678. Although other documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure bear similar hallmarks to {ID_000554} (including {ID_000553}, another Reliance Document), Dr Wright has not disclosed their equivalent underlying PDFs. 679. 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 680. Despite this document being one of Dr Wright’s primary reliance documents, he stated in Appendix B to Wright11 that he could not recall how it was created or even whether “this is my original document or something other people have used.” He sought to explain away the findings summarised above by denying that the PDF document {ID_000375} was the source for this document {ID_000554}. He claimed that the PDF document {ID_000375} had been created after 2012/13 by unidentified “employees of DeMorgan Ltd”, and that the two documents were thus unrelated. See {CSW/2/55}. He repeated this explanation in his oral evidence: {Day4/31:11} to {Day4/37:14}. 681. Dr Wright sought to explain the finding that the PDF document {ID_000375} had internal raw metadata indicating that its previous title had been the standard template title for a document created with a code2flow online conversion tool created in 2012. As well as claiming that that document was not the source of {ID_000554}, he also suggested that previous tools existed which he could have used to create that document in its current form in 2008. See: {Day4/41:18} to {Day4/42:12}. 682. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 682.1. Dr Wright’s attempt to deny that the PDF document {ID_000375} is the source for the TIFF document {ID_000554} is implausible. It is obvious from visual comparison of the two documents that, although the latter is less legible, both depict an absolutely identical code structure, a point which Dr Wright was compelled to admit in his oral evidence {Day4/34:13}. In addition, both have the same header (BitCoin main.h) and the same footer (1 of 1 // 9/06/2008 11:24). Furthermore, there is no other document in the disclosure which could qualify as a source for the TIFF document {ID_000554}. 682.2. Dr Wright has been driven by the forensic findings to accept that {ID_000375} was created years after 2008, despite that document (in his disclosure) having a face date of 2008. He has sought to distance the two documents from each other (despite all their similarities) for the obvious purpose of avoiding the natural conclusion that {ID_000554} was created from {ID_000375} years after 2008. 682.3. Dr Wright’s explanation does not account for the signs of backdating of the source document, {ID_000375}, which are set out in PM10 [22-41 {H/63/9}, including (i) the document title and footer date having the year (08) being encoded differently from the other parts of the footer (indicating manipulation); and (ii) the internal created and modified metadata indicating creation of the document in 2008 (despite it now being common ground that the document was created years later). If this document was simply created by DeMorgan employees some time after 2015, and there was no intention to create a backdated forgery, it is impossible to see why these findings would appear. 682.4. Dr Wright has provided no documentary or witness evidence to back up his account that DeMorgan employees created the PDF document {ID_000375}. If he really can remember that that document was created for a distinct purpose by DeMorgan employees, it is surprising that he cannot identify (still less call as a witness) the person who supposedly created it. 682.5. Dr Wright had previously given an account of the creation of this document in Chain of Custody information which Mr Madden conclusively debunked in PM43 [69-74 {H/219/28}. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 683. I found COPA’s arguments to be entirely convincing. This was another clumsy forgery 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

Hex-Edited Bitcoin Executable Linked to COPA's Forgery Claims

C++ Code Documents in Bitcoin Case Deemed Forgery

Too Long; Didn't Read

Make resilience your competitive advantage

COPA Accuses Craig Wright of Manipulating Bitcoin Flowchart Documents

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

Judge Rules Anthropic’s Use of Books for AI Training Was Legal, but Pirated Copies Raise Liability

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

Judge Rules Anthropic’s Use of Books for AI Training Was Legal, but Pirated Copies Raise Liability

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