This content originally appeared on HackerNoon and was authored by Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases
:::tip 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 32 of 42.
:::
30. Coffee-stained printout of Bitcoin White Paper (Reliance Document) {ID_004011} / {L2/234/1}
566. {ID004011} is a scan of the same document shown at {ID003330}. It purports to be a photograph of the front page of a printout of the Bitcoin White Paper with Dr Wright’s name and contact details at the top and a note in Dr Wright’s own handwriting. The document is stapled and bears coffee stains. Dr Wright claims the original date of the document to be 3 October 2008 in his Chain of Custody information.
\ 567. Compared to {ID003330}, {ID004011} shows further manuscript amendments added by Dr Wright in his own handwriting which were not present in {ID_003330}.
\ (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery
\ 568. {ID003330} and {ID004011} bear the same coffee stain and other physical characteristics. They are plainly two records of the same hard-copy document at different points in time (the ‘Coffee-Stained Printout’).
\ 569. {ID004011} has additional handwritten annotations which do not appear in {ID003330}.
\ 570. The Coffee-Stained Printout is a copy of an A4-size printout of the Bitcoin White Paper said to date from 3 October 2008. It bears Dr Wright’s name and contact details [Charles Sturt University, in a manner identical to {ID000536}, {ID000537}, and {ID000538}, and those details in those other documents are otherwise identical to this document’s face-value content [PM3 [10]: Style 4 in relation to ID00536 to ID00538, and Style 8 in relation to {ID004011}].
\ 571. The Coffee-Stained Printout is a printout of a digital document. When imaged (whether as {ID003330} or as {ID004011}), it carries no internal metadata for forensic examination of its original content. [PM15 [1, 8]; PM3 [245]].
\ 572. No underlying digital document has been identified by Dr Wright. However, the title of the Coffee-Stained Printout contains the same hyphenation error as present in the title of {ID000537} (a native PDF), which reads “Peer-toPeer” [PM3 [138-139]]. That hyphenation error does not appear in any other versions of the Bitcoin White Paper, or any other documents, in Dr Wright’s disclosure. It is to be inferred that the Coffee Stained Printout is a printout of an edited version of {ID000537}.
\ 573. At this point, COPA repeated the Reasons for Alleging Forgery relating to {ID_000537}.
\ 574. The document was identified as follows in COPA’s Schedule of Dr Wright’s Forged Documents:
\ 574.1. {ID000537} purports to be a PDF version of the White Paper with the same Adobe properties as ID000536, with a creation timestamp of 24 January 2008 and a last modification on 21 May 2008.
\ 574.2. The original filename of this document is given as “SSRN-id3440802.pdf”. This filename is understood by COPA to be related to the document referred to in COPA’s Particulars of Claim at [30-35] and in Dr Wright’s Defence at [52]. However, it is not in fact the same document.
\ 575. Then, COPA’s Reasons for Allegation of Forgery were as follows:
\ 575.1. Rather than being a precursor document to the Bitcoin White Paper as it purports to be, this document has been created from the Bitcoin White Paper subsequently, and edited in such a way that it appears as if it was precursor work. [PM3 [145]].
\ 575.2. The metadata of this document has been edited in its year and month, so as to appear to date from over a year before the authentic Bitcoin White Paper. However, the timestamps otherwise match in their day, hour, minutes, and seconds. [PM3 [91]].
\ 575.3. The document includes a redundant metadata field listing the true creation date of 20090324113315-06'00', which is consistent with the date of the authentic Bitcoin White Paper. It is not consistent with the purported date of the document. [PM3 [133]].
\ 575.4. The document contains “Touchup_textedit” flags indicating that the document text has been edited in Adobe software [PM3 [95-98, 137]].
\ 575.5. The effect of the “Touchup_textedit” changes shown on the face of the document includes adding Dr Wright’s name and contact details in place of those of Satoshi Nakamoto.
\ 575.6. The document contains additional, hidden “Touchuptextedit” flags relating to changes which are not shown on the face of the document. The hidden changes are identical to those observed in ID003732, indicating that ID000537 was created subsequent to the creation of ID003732. ID003732 dates from 22 May 2019. On that basis, ID000537 could not have been created before 22 May 2019. [PM3 [98-99, 137]].
\ 575.7. The document purports to have been authored using a version of XMP Core that does not exist. The version referenced in the internal metadata is invalid and does not relate to any real-world versions, indicating content manipulation. [PM3 [108- 114 and 136]].
\ 575.8. The date of the XMP Core version is given as October 2008. If this format were valid, which is denied, it would in any case post-date the purported date of authorship of the document. [PM3 [115]].
\ 575.9. ID_000537 contains a textual error, in that a hyphen is missing in the title. This textual error does not appear in the authentic versions of the Bitcoin White Paper. The same textual error does not appear in other similarly dated documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure. [PM3 [139-140]].
\ 575.10. This document is listed as having the same filename as the SSRN document to which COPA (in its Particulars of Claim) and Dr Wright (in his Defence) have both pleaded. However, the document is not the same document, and differs by electronic hash. [PM3 [140-142]].
\ 576. Thus, as explained above in relation to {ID_000537}, that document could not have been created before 22 August 2019. On that basis, the Coffee-Stained Printout could not have been created before that date.
\ 577. {ID003330} has been disclosed with external metadata indicating that it was created and/or sent by WhatsApp on 4 September 2019 [P15 [6-10]. Taking this point with those above, Dr Wright’s handwritten annotations visible on the face of {ID003330} (the “Initial Handwritten Annotations”) date from the period 22 August 2019 to 4 September 2019.
\ 578. {ID004011} was created by scanning using a Canon Multifunction Scanner/Printer device on 10 September 2019 [PM3 [245]]. Dr Wright’s further handwritten annotations, visible on the face of {ID004011} (the “Further Handwritten Annotations”), do not appear on the face of {ID_003330}. The Further Handwritten Annotations therefore date from the period between 4 September 2019 and 10 September 2019.
\ 579. In each case, the Initial Handwritten Annotations and the Further Handwritten Annotations are of a nature tending to present the document and the annotations as if it was a printout of a draft of the Bitcoin White Paper containing annotations from 2008, contrary to fact.
\ 580. In addition to the handwritten annotations, the Coffee-Stained Printout (as seen in {ID003330}) contains physical characteristics including tears, marks, warped paper, and the prominent presence of a coffee stain. These characteristics are of a nature tending to present the document as if it was an aged document, contrary to fact. In fact, for the aforesaid reasons, the Coffee-Stained Printout was not two weeks old by the date that the photograph {ID003330} was taken. It is to be inferred that these indicia of age were added during that period, in an attempt to make the document to appear to be older than it was.
\ 581. Following receipt of the Madden Report, Dr Wright has accepted in his Chain of Custody information that {ID_003330} was taken using his Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus Mobile Phone, a device that was not released until 2019, and he has said that some annotations in red ink were added between 2017 and 2020. This account is implausible. COPA contends that the document itself, including all the annotations, are inauthentic to their purported date in 2008.
\ (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility
\ 582. I first set out the reasons given by COPA for inferring Dr Wright’s knowledge of/ /responsibility for the forgery of {ID000537} because these underpin the reasons given for {ID004011} and {ID_003330}. These are as follows:
\ 582.1. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (presenting as a predecessor draft of the Bitcoin White Paper and supposedly written by him in early 2008), contrary to fact.
\ 582.2. The purpose of the tampering was apparently for upload to a public website, SSRN, in order to cause it to appear to the public that Dr Wright is the author of the Bitcoin White Paper, contrary to fact.
\ 582.3. COPA’s Particulars of Claim recited several of the indicia of tampering set out above, in respect of a document bearing an identical file name to the original filename of ID_000537. Dr Wright (in his Defence) then admitted that the document in question was not created at the time purported in its metadata, but actually created in 2019. Dr Wright has admitted that he uploaded the document to SSRN and that it was created for this purpose. Dr Wright has thus accepted that these documents are not true versions of the Bitcoin White Paper only after their veracity has been called into question.
\ 582.4. Even while admitting the document to have been altered in 2019, Dr Wright declines to admit that the purported 2008 dates stated in its metadata are inauthentic “[p]ending a technical examination of the documents” [Defence [59]. Following receipt of that technical examination in the form of the Madden Report, Dr Wright has not (to date) altered his position.
\ 582.5. In his Defence, Dr Wright has provided an explanation for his creation of this document which not plausible. [Defence [53-55]].
\ 582.6. The contact details included refer to Charles Sturt University. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has claimed to have drafted and shared versions of the Bitcoin White Paper while studying at Charles Sturt University, and to have discussed the concepts with teaching staff at Charles Sturt University. [Wright1 [87]; Wright4 [52]].
\ 582.7. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has stated this to be an authentic document. [Exhibit CSW-5]
\ 583. Reverting to the reasons given for {ID004011} and {ID003330}, Dr Wright has positively asserted that both of these documents are documents on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
\ 584. Dr Wright has chosen to rely in these proceedings on two copies of the Coffee-Stained Printout ({ID004011} and {ID003330}) both of which are stripped of metadata by reason of their creation process, but he has not relied on or disclosed any underlying digital document that contains relevant metadata.
\ 585. The documents both contain notes in Dr Wright’s own handwriting.
\ 586. Dr Wright accepts that he deliberately altered the Coffee-Stained Printout in his own handwriting at some time during 2017-2020.
\ 587. Dr Wright accepts that the photograph {ID_003330} was taken on his own mobile phone.
\ 588. The effect of the creation of Coffee-Stained Printout in the way described is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. as a predecessor version of the Bitcoin White Paper, recorded for posterity), contrary to fact.
\ 589. Dr Wright refused to provide information about the dating of his Reliance Documents, including these, when requested. Only following service of the Madden Report did he provide an alternative account of the origin of these documents. As noted above, his account is implausible.
\ 590. The effect of the alterations has been to introduce annotations referring to matters on which Dr Wright relies in his evidence in these proceedings.
\ 591. The document bears Dr Wright’s name and contact details.
\ 592. As for {ID_000537}, the contact details included refer to Charles Sturt University. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has claimed to have drafted and shared versions of the Bitcoin White Paper while studying at Charles Sturt University, and to have discussed the concepts with teaching staff at Charles Sturt University. [Wright1 [87]; Wright4 [52]].
\ 593. Dr Wright claims, in his Chain of Custody information, to have drafted this document.
\ (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal
\ 594. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright accepted that this document {ID004011} was created by scanning a hard copy document on 10 September 2019. He claimed that some of the annotations in the document had been made between August and September 2019, while others had been made earlier. He denied that the document at {ID000537} was the source for this document, despite the two having the same irregular hyphenation in the title and there being no other document in disclosure with that feature (other than {ID003330}, which is a photograph of the first page of the document later scanned as {ID004011}). He claimed that both documents had been originally created in LATEX but that the prior versions had not been retained. See: {CSW/2/64} to {CSW/2/65}.
\ 595. COPA submitted that this document is a forgery, plainly created to give the appearance of a document dating from 2008, contrary to fact, and furthermore that Dr Wright’s explanations should be rejected, for the following reasons:
\ 595.1. Mr Madden established in appendix PM44 that this document derived from {ID000537}. Apart from the two documents sharing the irregular hyphenation in the title and other features of the title (including Dr Wright’s contact details at Charles Sturt University), they were found to be entirely identical on their face once {ID000537} (a PDF document) was opened in MS Word and a footer removed. Although Dr Wright attempted to deny Mr Madden’s findings in his oral evidence while boasting of his own supposedly superior expertise ({Day4/13:11} to {Day4/17:25}, Mr Madden was not even challenged on these findings in cross-examination.
\ 595.2. The document at {ID000537} contained numerous artefacts in its metadata which were indicative of backdating: a metadata reference to an invalid version of XMP Core; Touchuptextedit history shared with {ID_000536}; a redundant metadata field for creation date which matched that of the published (2009) version of the White Paper. See PM3 [133-137]. Dr Wright had no proper explanation for those anomalous artefacts in the source document.
\ 595.3. It follows from the above points that this document {ID_004011} is not a genuine prior draft of the Bitcoin White Paper, as Dr Wright has claimed it is (see Exhibit CSW5, row 22 {L19/257/5}).
\ 595.4. Dr Wright and Stefan Matthews have since 2015 claimed that Dr Wright gave Mr Matthews a copy of the Bitcoin White Paper in 2008 with a view to interesting him and his company, Centrebet, in the project. This document bears all the hallmarks of a document forged to provide false support for that story, in particular in that it has been given signs of age (coffee stains, etc) and the following notes have been added: “Stefan – Will Centrebet use a token that is transferable + audited” (p1) and “Stefan Matthews – Would Centrebet use this” (p8). There are other documents suggesting that this was the intention. Calvin Ayre has referred in a Tweet supporting Dr Wright that he had “old versions of the white paper… printed and with his notes and coffee on them and rusty staples” {L15/453/1}. According to an IRC log chat from September 2017 excerpted in an article, Dr Wright claimed in that chat that Mr Matthews had a copy of the White Paper “complete with coffee stains” {L17/390/118}.
\ 595.5. Dr Wright’s cover story for this document relies upon his account that the Bitcoin White Paper and its precursor drafts were written in LATEX. For the reasons given in detail in the expert report of Mr Rosendahl (and as agreed in the joint expert statement with Mr Lynch), that account is itself false.
\ 595.6. Dr Wright’s attempt to explain away the notes apparently addressed to Mr Matthews as notes for himself, at least one of which he said was written in 2019 as a note for the purposes of the Kleiman litigation, was not credible. These were notes addressed to Stefan, asking him if Centrebet could use the Bitcoin system.
\ (d) Conclusion
\ 596. I find COPA’s submissions to be wholly convincing. Dr Wright’s explanations (as summarised in Appendix 1 to his Closing) do not begin to counter the force of COPA’s submissions. Once again, I find this document was plainly forged by Dr Wright and his explanations were lies.
\
:::tip Continue Reading Here.
:::
:::info About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
\n
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.
:::
\
This content originally appeared on HackerNoon and was authored by Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases | Sciencx (2024-07-24T16:56:13+00:00) Craig Wright’s Bitcoin White Paper Document Questioned for Forgery. Retrieved from https://www.scien.cx/2024/07/24/craig-wrights-bitcoin-white-paper-document-questioned-for-forgery/
Please log in to upload a file.
There are no updates yet.
Click the Upload button above to add an update.