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 7 of 42. 5. “Project BlackNet” paper (Reliance Document) {ID_001379} / {L1/79/1} 100. This document purports to be a copy of a “Project BlackNet” research paper dated on its face to 3 October 2002. The document contains references to a “Stage 4 – Release Phase” and other textual amendments, referring to “Digital Cash”, as well as other features of purported relevance to Bitcoin. 101. This document includes the text of the BlackNet Abstract (see the section above) pleaded as a forgery in COPA’s Particulars of Claim [26-27], and dealt with in the preceding section. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 102. The document has been backdated [PM8 [60-61]. The document is dated on its face to 3 October 2002. However, the internal metadata for the document indicate that it was actually created on 17 February 2014. [PM8 [15]]. 103. The document is an edited version of an earlier document, into which passages of text have been inserted using text from the Bitcoin White Paper. [PM8 [23-33, 60.b.]]. 104. The document is apparently part of a series of documents, all of which carry similar content on their face, but which have been edited or are converted versions of the same file [PM8 [3]]. Some of those documents are consistent with a pattern of editing beginning with an earlier precursor document, and ending with a document which would be deployed as if it was original and authentic, in connection with Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. See in particular Mr Madden’s discussion of {ID_001016} as another backdated document in the sequence [PM8 [34-50]]. 105. The metadata indicates that the file was created using Microsoft Word 2013 as the PDF Producer. Microsoft Word 2013 was not yet published in 2002 (the date on the face of the document) but is contemporaneous for 2014. [PM8 [15]]. 106. The document was created in PDF form by printing to PDF from an underlying precursor DOC or .DOCX document on 17 February 2014 [PM8 [16]]. No such underlying precursor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 107. Dr Wright is listed in the metadata as the author of the document. 108. Dr Wright is listed on the face of the document as its first author. 109. Dr Wright is listed as the sole author in the ‘version control’ section of the document on page 2. 110. The document contains Dr Wright’s address and telephone number. 111. Dr Wright has positively asserted in these proceedings that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 112. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done by him in 2002, elements of which then appeared in the Bitcoin White Paper), contrary to fact. 113. Dr Wright has posted screenshots of this document or a very similar document on Twitter, apparently in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 114. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has claimed this to be a document related to the later Bitcoin White Paper and that it is original to the purported date on its face, contrary to fact. [Exhibit CSW 14]. 115. Dr Wright has relied on this document, or documents with similar content, in previous proceedings and in public in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 116. The metadata records “DeMorgan” as the company from which the document was created. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on his work on various projects from his time at DeMorgan, as part of his claim to have been working on the concepts behind the Bitcoin White Paper. [Wright1 [32-47]]. 117. The document was created in the time zone UTC+11, consistent with Dr Wright’s location in Australia in February 2014, being the date of creation of the document. [PM8 [18]]. 118. In his Defence in these proceedings, in public social media posts, and elsewhere, Dr Wright has repeatedly stated that the series of research papers (to which this document belongs) are related to the Bitcoin White Paper, and that later applications (submitted in 2009/2010) contained the abstract of the Bitcoin White Paper. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 119. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright accepted that this document was created by conversion of a document to PDF format in 2014. He claimed that this document was obtained from the computer of a former employee who had achieved unauthorised access to Dr Wright’s current wife’s email account, although he did not explain why that claim was relevant. He gave no coherent explanation for why a project paper supposedly prepared for an ITOL application in 2002 would be converted to PDF by an employee of one of his companies in 2014. See: {CSW/2/59} to {CSW/2/60}. 120. In his oral evidence, Dr Wright tried to explain away the fact that (a) authentic versions of this document describe an IT security project (involving an encrypted network), with no reference to any digital transaction system and (b) this version (among others) includes the content of the authentic versions but adds incongruous sections referring to a peer-to-peer digital transaction system involving transactions being structured into “an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work” to preclude double-spending or replay attacks. See {Day2/56:22} to {Day2/77:18}. Key aspects of his explanations and their deficiencies are addressed below. 121. This document is a forgery. Its content is not authentic to 2002, as Dr Wright claims it is. His attempts to explain away the indications of forgery should be rejected for the following reasons: 121.1. A version of this document in disclosure which Mr Madden has established as apparently authentic to 2002 ({ID000013}) is an internally coherent plan for an IT security system with three stages, in which the Stage 3 is described as the Final Phase and the budget covers three stages. It includes nothing about a digital transaction system, still less one involving a chain of hash-based proof-of-work. 121.2. Similarly, a project plan for this IT project which Dr Wright actually submitted to AusIndustry in 2003 has the same content as that apparently authentic document: {L1/113/1} [p8ff. Both the application form {L/113/3} and the project plan {L/113/8} were consistent in their description of the project. Neither says anything about a digital transaction system, still less one involving a chain of hash-based proof-of-work. 121.3. Even an apparently authentic version of the project plan in disclosure which dates to March 2009 {ID_001016} shows the project in the same terms, concluding with Stage 3 and including nothing about a digital currency system. 121.4. In this reliance document {ID_001379}, as in some other (similarly inauthentic) versions of the project plan in disclosure, Dr Wright has added an Abstract (at p4) which describes a digital transaction system similar to Bitcoin. The Abstract bears no obvious relation to the various other parts of the document, which are survivals of the authentic version, such as the Overall Objective section at p6 and the Assessment Against the Selection Criteria section at p8. Dr Wright has also added a few references to a Stage 4 involving the development of the supposed digital transaction system. However, he has forgotten to modify the budget on p11-12, which makes no financial provision for the supposed Stage 4 and still describes Stage 3 as the Final Phase. 121.5. In the Kleiman trial, Dr Wright said that parts of the Bitcoin White Paper went back to his “2002 AusIndustry filings for research and development”: see {L17/327/93}. When that evidence was put to him in this trial, he insisted that the document including the supposed Stage 4 elements of the project (involving a digital transaction system) “would have been filed [with AusIndustry] in 2002 and then in 2003”: {Day2/72:24}. That evidence was flatly contradicted by the actual AusIndustry filing from July 2003 (summarised above). 121.6. Dr Wright has attempted to account for these documents by a confused narrative of different versions of the document being in existence in 2002 and 2009 and used for different purposes, while the version control was in a state of chaos (see transcript reference above). The documents tell their own clear story: that Dr Wright produced an IT security project plan in 2002, which he used for tax concession applications, but he later (from 2014) doctored that plan to bolt on sections reflecting features of the Bitcoin system in order to promote his false claim to have been involved in creating that system. (d) Conclusion 122. I am entirely satisfied that the Project BlackNet paper was 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 7 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 7 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 5. “Project BlackNet” paper (Reliance Document) {ID_001379} / {L1/79/1} 100. This document purports to be a copy of a “Project BlackNet” research paper dated on its face to 3 October 2002. The document contains references to a “Stage 4 – Release Phase” and other textual amendments, referring to “Digital Cash”, as well as other features of purported relevance to Bitcoin. 101. This document includes the text of the BlackNet Abstract (see the section above) pleaded as a forgery in COPA’s Particulars of Claim [26-27], and dealt with in the preceding section. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 102. The document has been backdated [PM8 [60-61]. The document is dated on its face to 3 October 2002. However, the internal metadata for the document indicate that it was actually created on 17 February 2014. [PM8 [15]]. 103. The document is an edited version of an earlier document, into which passages of text have been inserted using text from the Bitcoin White Paper. [PM8 [23-33, 60.b.]]. 104. The document is apparently part of a series of documents, all of which carry similar content on their face, but which have been edited or are converted versions of the same file [PM8 [3]]. Some of those documents are consistent with a pattern of editing beginning with an earlier precursor document, and ending with a document which would be deployed as if it was original and authentic, in connection with Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. See in particular Mr Madden’s discussion of {ID_001016} as another backdated document in the sequence [PM8 [34-50]]. 105. The metadata indicates that the file was created using Microsoft Word 2013 as the PDF Producer. Microsoft Word 2013 was not yet published in 2002 (the date on the face of the document) but is contemporaneous for 2014. [PM8 [15]]. 106. The document was created in PDF form by printing to PDF from an underlying precursor DOC or .DOCX document on 17 February 2014 [PM8 [16]]. No such underlying precursor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 107. Dr Wright is listed in the metadata as the author of the document. 108. Dr Wright is listed on the face of the document as its first author. 109. Dr Wright is listed as the sole author in the ‘version control’ section of the document on page 2. 110. The document contains Dr Wright’s address and telephone number. 111. Dr Wright has positively asserted in these proceedings that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 112. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done by him in 2002, elements of which then appeared in the Bitcoin White Paper), contrary to fact. 113. Dr Wright has posted screenshots of this document or a very similar document on Twitter, apparently in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 114. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has claimed this to be a document related to the later Bitcoin White Paper and that it is original to the purported date on its face, contrary to fact. [Exhibit CSW 14]. 115. Dr Wright has relied on this document, or documents with similar content, in previous proceedings and in public in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 116. The metadata records “DeMorgan” as the company from which the document was created. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on his work on various projects from his time at DeMorgan, as part of his claim to have been working on the concepts behind the Bitcoin White Paper. [Wright1 [32-47]]. 117. The document was created in the time zone UTC+11, consistent with Dr Wright’s location in Australia in February 2014, being the date of creation of the document. [PM8 [18]]. 118. In his Defence in these proceedings, in public social media posts, and elsewhere, Dr Wright has repeatedly stated that the series of research papers (to which this document belongs) are related to the Bitcoin White Paper, and that later applications (submitted in 2009/2010) contained the abstract of the Bitcoin White Paper. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 119. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright accepted that this document was created by conversion of a document to PDF format in 2014. He claimed that this document was obtained from the computer of a former employee who had achieved unauthorised access to Dr Wright’s current wife’s email account, although he did not explain why that claim was relevant. He gave no coherent explanation for why a project paper supposedly prepared for an ITOL application in 2002 would be converted to PDF by an employee of one of his companies in 2014. See: {CSW/2/59} to {CSW/2/60}. 120. In his oral evidence, Dr Wright tried to explain away the fact that (a) authentic versions of this document describe an IT security project (involving an encrypted network), with no reference to any digital transaction system and (b) this version (among others) includes the content of the authentic versions but adds incongruous sections referring to a peer-to-peer digital transaction system involving transactions being structured into “an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work” to preclude double-spending or replay attacks. See {Day2/56:22} to {Day2/77:18}. Key aspects of his explanations and their deficiencies are addressed below. 121. This document is a forgery. Its content is not authentic to 2002, as Dr Wright claims it is. His attempts to explain away the indications of forgery should be rejected for the following reasons: 121.1. A version of this document in disclosure which Mr Madden has established as apparently authentic to 2002 ({ID000013}) is an internally coherent plan for an IT security system with three stages, in which the Stage 3 is described as the Final Phase and the budget covers three stages. It includes nothing about a digital transaction system, still less one involving a chain of hash-based proof-of-work. 121.2. Similarly, a project plan for this IT project which Dr Wright actually submitted to AusIndustry in 2003 has the same content as that apparently authentic document: {L1/113/1} [p8ff. Both the application form {L/113/3} and the project plan {L/113/8} were consistent in their description of the project. Neither says anything about a digital transaction system, still less one involving a chain of hash-based proof-of-work. 121.3. Even an apparently authentic version of the project plan in disclosure which dates to March 2009 {ID_001016} shows the project in the same terms, concluding with Stage 3 and including nothing about a digital currency system. 121.4. In this reliance document {ID_001379}, as in some other (similarly inauthentic) versions of the project plan in disclosure, Dr Wright has added an Abstract (at p4) which describes a digital transaction system similar to Bitcoin. The Abstract bears no obvious relation to the various other parts of the document, which are survivals of the authentic version, such as the Overall Objective section at p6 and the Assessment Against the Selection Criteria section at p8. Dr Wright has also added a few references to a Stage 4 involving the development of the supposed digital transaction system. However, he has forgotten to modify the budget on p11-12, which makes no financial provision for the supposed Stage 4 and still describes Stage 3 as the Final Phase. 121.5. In the Kleiman trial, Dr Wright said that parts of the Bitcoin White Paper went back to his “2002 AusIndustry filings for research and development”: see {L17/327/93}. When that evidence was put to him in this trial, he insisted that the document including the supposed Stage 4 elements of the project (involving a digital transaction system) “would have been filed [with AusIndustry] in 2002 and then in 2003”: {Day2/72:24}. That evidence was flatly contradicted by the actual AusIndustry filing from July 2003 (summarised above). 121.6. Dr Wright has attempted to account for these documents by a confused narrative of different versions of the document being in existence in 2002 and 2009 and used for different purposes, while the version control was in a state of chaos (see transcript reference above). The documents tell their own clear story: that Dr Wright produced an IT security project plan in 2002, which he used for tax concession applications, but he later (from 2014) doctored that plan to bolt on sections reflecting features of the Bitcoin system in order to promote his false claim to have been involved in creating that system. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 122. I am entirely satisfied that the Project BlackNet paper was 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

Craig Wright’s Homework Gets an F from Forensic Analysts 

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

Too Long; Didn't Read

CTA: Download the FREE AI Productivity Shift report

So, About That BlackNet Paper... Looks Like It’s Not from 2002 After All

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

Court Rules Craig Wright Definitely Isn't Satoshi Nakamoto

Craig Wright's Tangled Web of Lies in Bitcoin's Origin Story

Forensic Experts Accuse Craig Wright of Manipulating Evidence To Support His Satoshi Claims

Court Examines LaTeX Source Files in Craig Wright’s Claim to Bitcoin White Paper

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

Court Rules Craig Wright Definitely Isn't Satoshi Nakamoto

Craig Wright's Tangled Web of Lies in Bitcoin's Origin Story

Forensic Experts Accuse Craig Wright of Manipulating Evidence To Support His Satoshi Claims

Court Examines LaTeX Source Files in Craig Wright’s Claim to Bitcoin White Paper

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps