Datasets:

YL95

/

copa_v_wright_CPT_file_folder_path_train_val_test

like 0

/content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Skeletons/Closings/Appendix B to COPA's Closing Submissions - Schedule of Transcript References.pdf

Closings

part 124 of 220 Appendix B to COPA's Closing Submissions - Schedule of Transcript References.pdf

but Satoshi Nakamoto would know why it had been done. A. I do know why it's been done. Like I just said, I told you about the overflow for left shift and people were actually complaining about this as well. Most of the things have been turned on one by one in BSV, as we checked the code, so we've been rigorous in that, because some of the people in your team like to ensure that we are by checking for bugs, and most of those have been turne d on. That one I didn't realise had been missed. {G/6/50} - Fourth Expert Report of Mr Madden {Day8/163:3- 14} Q. And it has a key ID that we can see, which is CF1857E; do you see that? A. I do. Q. So there are two keys within this PGP key, right? A. I haven't worked on PGP for a long time, so I'll take your word for it. Q. Okay -- A. I used to know it much be tter. Q. But there's a primary key and a sub key, right? A. Yes. Q. And that's not at all unusual, right? Dr Wright does not appear to recall or understand Satoshi’s public PGP keys. Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 309 REFERENCE QUOTE COMMENT A. No. {L2/202.1/27} - OpenPGP Message Format document {G/6/50} - Fourth Expert Report of Mr Madden {Day8/168:1} - {Day8/170:11} Q. What it shows us is that Satoshi's PGP key, the primary key in his PGP key was designated as a signing key, right? A. No, it shows that it could be used as that. I noted that ea rlier. What I also said is you shouldn't be using the same keys. Q. It also identifies, doesn't it, that it couldn't be used -- the primary key could not be used as an encryption key, right? A. No, the algorithms are in there and it was used as an encryp tion key. Q. So -- A. As you well know. Q. If we could go then, if you don't mind, we'd better go back to {G/6/50}. Do you see that the primary key -- do you see the algorithm number? A. I do. Q. So it says "algo 17"; do you see that? A. I do. Q. "Algo 17" is associated -- it means that it's a DSA algorithm, right? A. Correct. Q. So that is a signing key, isn't it? A. No, it's more for code signing. So if you do an encrypted packet, you would encrypt and sign. Q. We just agreed DSA is not for encryption, is it? A. Like I just said, you use the two keys. You encrypt and sign. So if you wanted to do an encrypted to someone else or validate or have something else, it's a process of encrypt and sign. So that's how you would use that. Q. Sorry, you're not right, Dr Wright. The primary key her e is a signing key, the sub key, do you see the algorithm that's identified for that? It says "algo 16"? A. Yes. Dr Wright is refusing to accept the obvious truth that the primary key in Satoshi’s PGP key was designated as a signing key. Dr Wright is stating that he has not touched C++ since 2017, which is inconsistent with his first witness statement, paragraph 71 {E/1/15}, in which he states “… throughout my career, C++ has played a prominent role in various capacities. Although his current work primarily involves Python, because of its efficacy in higher level tasks, C++ continues to be an integral part of his coding knowledge and skills, underscoring its enduring relevance in his professional career.”. Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 310 REFERENCE QUOTE COMMENT Q. That's an ElGamal algorithm, isn't it? A. I don't remember each of the names of these off the top of my head. Q. Which is -- which would make it an encryption key, wouldn't it? A. ElGamal, yes. Q. So there are two keys here, one of which is a signing key and one of which is an encryption key? A. That's correct. Q. And can we go then to {CSW/1/46}. We should have paragraph 243 of your wi tness statement. You said: "The PGP ... is not a signing key." A. It isn't a signing key, it was used for encryption. Data was encrypted both from Malmi and from Gavin Andresen. Q. Dr Wright, it was set up as a signing key. The primary key in the PGP key was set up as a signing key, wasn't it? A. No, it was constructed automatically and it was never set up as a signing key. Do I remember each of the numbers in PGP any more? No. It's just like I did a lot of work between 2005 and 2008 to get up to speed on C and C programming for when I did Bitcoin and I don't any more. I haven't touched C++ since 2017. I have staff now and they do. So, do I remember it all? No. {Day8/171:11} - {Day8/172:2} Q. Come back to PGP, though. We've established that the primary key of this PGP key was a signing key, right? A. We've established that it's an automated system and that I didn't play around with a whole lot of settings. It wa s a key for encryption and that's what I used it for. Q. So had you signed with this PGP key, that would have been powerful evidence that you were Satoshi, wouldn't it? A. No. Q. You would have been able to sign with a key that was directly associated w ith him, wouldn't you? A. No. Once again, the server has been owned and re -owned from multiple people. A requirement for proving identity isn't that you hold a piece of data. If I was to have a key, I would have to have it in my possession and control the whole time. Dr Wright is implausibly denying that signing with Satoshi’s PGP key would have been powerful evidence that he was Satoshi. Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 311 REFERENCE QUOTE COMMENT {E/1/22} Dr Wright’s First Witness Statement {Day8/174:10} - {Day8/175:4} Q. -- that there were 69 computers. So that’s where you were spending the $11,000, right? 12 A. Something like that, yeah. I don’t have the exact amount. It was actually the -- there were -- the company paid for the three -phase power and

Trial document files for the COPA v Wright case. The claimant is CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE (COPA). The defendant is DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (Craig Wright). ### File name: part 124 of 220 Appendix B to COPA's Closing Submissions - Schedule of Transcript References.pdf ### Folder name: Closings ### File path: /content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Skeletons/Closings/Appendix B to COPA's Closing Submissions - Schedule of Transcript References.pdf ### File content: but Satoshi Nakamoto would know why it had been done. A. I do know why it's been done. Like I just said, I told you about the overflow for left shift and people were actually complaining about this as well. Most of the things have been turned on one by one in BSV, as we checked the code, so we've been rigorous in that, because some of the people in your team like to ensure that we are by checking for bugs, and most of those have been turne d on. That one I didn't realise had been missed. {G/6/50} - Fourth Expert Report of Mr Madden {Day8/163:3- 14} Q. And it has a key ID that we can see, which is CF1857E; do you see that? A. I do. Q. So there are two keys within this PGP key, right? A. I haven't worked on PGP for a long time, so I'll take your word for it. Q. Okay -- A. I used to know it much be tter. Q. But there's a primary key and a sub key, right? A. Yes. Q. And that's not at all unusual, right? Dr Wright does not appear to recall or understand Satoshi’s public PGP keys. Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 309 REFERENCE QUOTE COMMENT A. No. {L2/202.1/27} - OpenPGP Message Format document {G/6/50} - Fourth Expert Report of Mr Madden {Day8/168:1} - {Day8/170:11} Q. What it shows us is that Satoshi's PGP key, the primary key in his PGP key was designated as a signing key, right? A. No, it shows that it could be used as that. I noted that ea rlier. What I also said is you shouldn't be using the same keys. Q. It also identifies, doesn't it, that it couldn't be used -- the primary key could not be used as an encryption key, right? A. No, the algorithms are in there and it was used as an encryp tion key. Q. So -- A. As you well know. Q. If we could go then, if you don't mind, we'd better go back to {G/6/50}. Do you see that the primary key -- do you see the algorithm number? A. I do. Q. So it says "algo 17"; do you see that? A. I do. Q. "Algo 17" is associated -- it means that it's a DSA algorithm, right? A. Correct. Q. So that is a signing key, isn't it? A. No, it's more for code signing. So if you do an encrypted packet, you would encrypt and sign. Q. We just agreed DSA is not for encryption, is it? A. Like I just said, you use the two keys. You encrypt and sign. So if you wanted to do an encrypted to someone else or validate or have something else, it's a process of encrypt and sign. So that's how you would use that. Q. Sorry, you're not right, Dr Wright. The primary key her e is a signing key, the sub key, do you see the algorithm that's identified for that? It says "algo 16"? A. Yes. Dr Wright is refusing to accept the obvious truth that the primary key in Satoshi’s PGP key was designated as a signing key. Dr Wright is stating that he has not touched C++ since 2017, which is inconsistent with his first witness statement, paragraph 71 {E/1/15}, in which he states “… throughout my career, C++ has played a prominent role in various capacities. Although his current work primarily involves Python, because of its efficacy in higher level tasks, C++ continues to be an integral part of his coding knowledge and skills, underscoring its enduring relevance in his professional career.”. Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 310 REFERENCE QUOTE COMMENT Q. That's an ElGamal algorithm, isn't it? A. I don't remember each of the names of these off the top of my head. Q. Which is -- which would make it an encryption key, wouldn't it? A. ElGamal, yes. Q. So there are two keys here, one of which is a signing key and one of which is an encryption key? A. That's correct. Q. And can we go then to {CSW/1/46}. We should have paragraph 243 of your wi tness statement. You said: "The PGP ... is not a signing key." A. It isn't a signing key, it was used for encryption. Data was encrypted both from Malmi and from Gavin Andresen. Q. Dr Wright, it was set up as a signing key. The primary key in the PGP key was set up as a signing key, wasn't it? A. No, it was constructed automatically and it was never set up as a signing key. Do I remember each of the numbers in PGP any more? No. It's just like I did a lot of work between 2005 and 2008 to get up to speed on C and C programming for when I did Bitcoin and I don't any more. I haven't touched C++ since 2017. I have staff now and they do. So, do I remember it all? No. {Day8/171:11} - {Day8/172:2} Q. Come back to PGP, though. We've established that the primary key of this PGP key was a signing key, right? A. We've established that it's an automated system and that I didn't play around with a whole lot of settings. It wa s a key for encryption and that's what I used it for. Q. So had you signed with this PGP key, that would have been powerful evidence that you were Satoshi, wouldn't it? A. No. Q. You would have been able to sign with a key that was directly associated w ith him, wouldn't you? A. No. Once again, the server has been owned and re -owned from multiple people. A requirement for proving identity isn't that you hold a piece of data. If I was to have a key, I would have to have it in my possession and control the whole time. Dr Wright is implausibly denying that signing with Satoshi’s PGP key would have been powerful evidence that he was Satoshi. Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 311 REFERENCE QUOTE COMMENT {E/1/22} Dr Wright’s First Witness Statement {Day8/174:10} - {Day8/175:4} Q. -- that there were 69 computers. So that’s where you were spending the $11,000, right? 12 A. Something like that, yeah. I don’t have the exact amount. It was actually the -- there were -- the company paid for the three -phase power and

/content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Expert Reports/Patrick Madden/Appendix PM14.pdf

Patrick Madden

part 13 of 19 Appendix PM14.pdf

the right is outside of the picture box, which led me to consider that it would be worthwhile to conduct a deeper image analysis asfollows. 119. St arting with the signature, by zooming in on the section, it can be seen that there are two different pixelation quality level s in that section . {H/29} {ID_001926} {ID_001925} {ID_001930} {ID_001925} {ID_001925} Appendix PM 14 Tulip Trust/ID_001930, 1932, 1940, 3706, 1421, 1422, 1561, 1515, 1524, 1921, 1941 (compare 1904), 1940 (and 3706) Page 44 of 74 120. I next zoomed in on the text area and examined the content of the words as it i s di splayed there. I show below the view specifically around the word “Killara” towards the top right of the page. I observed that there is some degraded pixelization after the end of the word, forming a corona or shadow around the letters as is difficul t t o see in the screenshot below (and may be impossible to see in a printed version): a.I have used Paint.net software to adjust the luminosity in order to greater expose th e p ixelation , shown in the screenshot below: Appendix PM 14 Tulip Trust/ID_001930, 1932, 1940, 3706, 1421, 1422, 1561, 1515, 1524, 1921, 1941 (compare 1904), 1940 (and 3706) Page 45 of 74 b. T his type of blemish is caused by “ Anti -Aliasing ”: c.Anti-aliasing is a graphical smoothing technique to smooth sharp edges, by addin g ( usually faint) greyscale pixels around sharp lines. d.This is used in many computer graphics context but in scanned documents, it redu ces t he apparent pixelation effect that can occur when scanning text making it more legible to the human eye . e.T o give an example, this can be seen in the diagram below which is taken from https://3dprint.com/253260/what- is-metrology -part-17-antialiasing/ : f.A s can be seen there, the un -smoothed diagonal line is very crisp but after antialiasi ng i s applied, a corona or shadow of grey is visible around the edges . 121. G enerally, when text is scanned, anti- aliased, and then OCR is used on the resulti ng i mage (in Adobe, called the “Recognize Text” function), the smooth antialiasing shadows Appendix PM 14 Tulip Trust/ID_001930, 1932, 1940, 3706, 1421, 1422, 1561, 1515, 1524, 1921, 1941 (compare 1904), 1940 (and 3706) Page 46 of 74 are not always ‘recognised’ as forming part of the letters, meaning that when the letters are edited or deleted shadows can remain afterwards. 122. T hese are often not visible to the human eye without sharpening the image, at which point they become exposed. 123. T he result of this is that when text is edited in a scanned document, it is sometimes possible to find shadows of previous text embe dded within it – as in ID_001925 a nd I D_001930 – which are normally invisible but which are nevertheless digitally present. a.C ontinuing with my analysis of ID_001925, I next used the utility “Winking PDF Analyser” to extract embedded graphic files from the PDF file . This resulted in two images being extracted: b.T he first extracted graphic matched with the Signature block graphics item mentioned above and shown the below in its extracted form (with border added): 124. I t can therefore be seen that most of the signature block was added to the document as a g raphic file, with the missing curl on the right side possibly having been added b y di fferent means . This may explain the different pixelation level that I showed above , t hough this is simply setting out the observation at this stage of the analysis and is not a conclusion. 125. T he second graphic item was the same size as the entire page. It was a graphical layer sitting behind the text, which contained an anti-aliasing corona of all the original textfrom the page . {ID_00192 5} {ID_00193 0} {ID_00192 5} Appendix PM 14 Tulip Trust/ID_001930, 1932, 1940, 3706, 1421, 1422,

Trial document files for the COPA v Wright case. The claimant is CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE (COPA). The defendant is DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (Craig Wright). ### File name: part 13 of 19 Appendix PM14.pdf ### Folder name: Patrick Madden ### File path: /content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Expert Reports/Patrick Madden/Appendix PM14.pdf ### File content: the right is outside of the picture box, which led me to consider that it would be worthwhile to conduct a deeper image analysis asfollows. 119. St arting with the signature, by zooming in on the section, it can be seen that there are two different pixelation quality level s in that section . {H/29} {ID_001926} {ID_001925} {ID_001930} {ID_001925} {ID_001925} Appendix PM 14 Tulip Trust/ID_001930, 1932, 1940, 3706, 1421, 1422, 1561, 1515, 1524, 1921, 1941 (compare 1904), 1940 (and 3706) Page 44 of 74 120. I next zoomed in on the text area and examined the content of the words as it i s di splayed there. I show below the view specifically around the word “Killara” towards the top right of the page. I observed that there is some degraded pixelization after the end of the word, forming a corona or shadow around the letters as is difficul t t o see in the screenshot below (and may be impossible to see in a printed version): a.I have used Paint.net software to adjust the luminosity in order to greater expose th e p ixelation , shown in the screenshot below: Appendix PM 14 Tulip Trust/ID_001930, 1932, 1940, 3706, 1421, 1422, 1561, 1515, 1524, 1921, 1941 (compare 1904), 1940 (and 3706) Page 45 of 74 b. T his type of blemish is caused by “ Anti -Aliasing ”: c.Anti-aliasing is a graphical smoothing technique to smooth sharp edges, by addin g ( usually faint) greyscale pixels around sharp lines. d.This is used in many computer graphics context but in scanned documents, it redu ces t he apparent pixelation effect that can occur when scanning text making it more legible to the human eye . e.T o give an example, this can be seen in the diagram below which is taken from https://3dprint.com/253260/what- is-metrology -part-17-antialiasing/ : f.A s can be seen there, the un -smoothed diagonal line is very crisp but after antialiasi ng i s applied, a corona or shadow of grey is visible around the edges . 121. G enerally, when text is scanned, anti- aliased, and then OCR is used on the resulti ng i mage (in Adobe, called the “Recognize Text” function), the smooth antialiasing shadows Appendix PM 14 Tulip Trust/ID_001930, 1932, 1940, 3706, 1421, 1422, 1561, 1515, 1524, 1921, 1941 (compare 1904), 1940 (and 3706) Page 46 of 74 are not always ‘recognised’ as forming part of the letters, meaning that when the letters are edited or deleted shadows can remain afterwards. 122. T hese are often not visible to the human eye without sharpening the image, at which point they become exposed. 123. T he result of this is that when text is edited in a scanned document, it is sometimes possible to find shadows of previous text embe dded within it – as in ID_001925 a nd I D_001930 – which are normally invisible but which are nevertheless digitally present. a.C ontinuing with my analysis of ID_001925, I next used the utility “Winking PDF Analyser” to extract embedded graphic files from the PDF file . This resulted in two images being extracted: b.T he first extracted graphic matched with the Signature block graphics item mentioned above and shown the below in its extracted form (with border added): 124. I t can therefore be seen that most of the signature block was added to the document as a g raphic file, with the missing curl on the right side possibly having been added b y di fferent means . This may explain the different pixelation level that I showed above , t hough this is simply setting out the observation at this stage of the analysis and is not a conclusion. 125. T he second graphic item was the same size as the entire page. It was a graphical layer sitting behind the text, which contained an anti-aliasing corona of all the original textfrom the page . {ID_00192 5} {ID_00193 0} {ID_00192 5} Appendix PM 14 Tulip Trust/ID_001930, 1932, 1940, 3706, 1421, 1422,

/content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Skeletons/Closings/COPA's Closing Submissions.pdf

Closings

part 12 of 82 COPA's Closing Submissions.pdf

was the background leading up to it? Were there prior attempts that failed? Some of the human aspects and conflicts will be important, as well… knowledge of / interactions with DPR and others and related sites that rose to prominence in ass ociation? What security measures were taken to preserve SN’s anonymity? Why? Background on the origins of the pseudonym itself. Interactions with the inevitable shady groups and interesting characters. Inception of the super - computer and why. Why ther e? How did you convince them? Etcetera, etcetera .” The email from Mr MacGregor then turned to the “proof package”: “Finally, we’ll need to consider the “proof package” to establish SN’s identity. There will be the package that will be required by non- technical audiences (notes, etc. that document and evidence creation), but also some decisions as to how to definitively establish SN’s pedigree technically. Some of SN’s wallets are publicly known, correct? Craig, I will need you to walk me through how this could be leveraged if and when the time comes. Could SN activate and move a coin within one of these wallets? What would be sufficient proof from a technical perspective in your view?” 83. Dr Wright then answered the above questions by way of an email from his wife.111 That response included Dr Wright’s claim to have been influenced by Wei Dai’s work since the late 1990s (a claim which Dr Wright has since repeated but which, as set out below, could not be true for the real Satoshi Nakamoto). Ms Watts’ email attached a timeline, which also featured elements of the story Dr Wright has told since then.112 110 {L10/424/2} and over the page to {L10/424/3}. 111 {L10/424/1} . 112 {L10/425} , named “Timeline.docx” . 31 84. In an email dated 24 November 2015,113 from Mr MacGregor to Dr Wright (copying Mr Ayre and Mr Matthews amongst others), he said that he had met Baker McKenzie that morning, and again, referred to the “proof packet” being needed at item 5: “(5) We’re going to need to create a “proof packet” before too much longer. I’ve been thinking about this and have a couple of ideas. Activating the SN wallets goes a long way, but all it really proves is that someone is in control of SN’s private keys, which could, obviously, have been transferred or acquired otherwise. The keys, plus the documentation substantiating and documenting the original pre -publication research will be enough for 99% of the world, but we will want everything in a data room quite soon for assessment and forensic analysis if possible. Ideally, we identify a very, very credible blockchain “insider” (I’m sure you already know the shortlist directly, Craig) and then bring him/her under NDA and then into the data room. We need at least one extremely credible third party that can have examined the data room, the research, and spoken with Craig, so that in addition to the packet we have the voice of a trusted community member substantiating when the time comes .” 85. Dr Wright denied the authenticity of this email too, in the following exchange:114 “Q. Well, this one refers, at item (5), to Mr MacGregor proposing creation of a proof package -- proof packet rather, inc luding establishing control of Satoshi Nakamoto's private keys and so on. Was that being discussed by that stage, 24 November 2015? A. God, no. There's no way on earth I'd give over my damn private keys to someone. Q. No, but was that being discussed by Mr MacGregor at that stage? A. I don't know what he was discussing. I mean, honestly, if I'm not the person receiving it and it's a thing set up as Craig Wright and his company, no idea.” 86. Dr Wright responded to Mr MacGregor’s email of 24 November 2015 within 24 hours,115 giving the names of some people who could be used for the signing sessions. These included “Adam Black” (which appears twice and is a mistake Dr Wright made elsewhere, clearly getting Dr Back’s name wrong). This message also said th at “Stefan has copies of the Bitmessage and also pgp keys ”. No such Bitmessage or PGP keys have been put forward as supportive evidence.116 113 {L11/55/2} . 114 {Day7/108:22} - {Day7/109:8} . 115 {L11/55/1} . 116 No doubt the reason that Bitmessage keys were not tendered as evidence in these proceedings is that Dr Wright had come unstuck in the Kleiman proceedings, after being confronted with the origins of Bitmessage. That was first proposed at the end of 2012, in a white pape r that is in every respect a clear homage to the work Satoshi Nakamoto (and not the other way around): see {L8/49/2}. Satoshi's real PGP keys are addressed below. 32 87. As noted above, Dr Wright disavows all these emails, because they do not fit with his narrative of Mr MacGregor forcing him reluctantly into the “Big Reveal” process after the WIRED and Gizmodo articles had been published. However, it is clear from their contents that they are genuine emails, and Dr Wright’s one reason for rejecting them (i.e. that he was never employ ed by Tyche Consulting) is plainly false. 88. Mr Matthews similarly accused Mr MacGregor of bullying Dr Wright and forcing him to participate in the public revelation of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. As explained below, Mr Matthews’ account is also unre liable, since (contrary to his repeated statements) the emails tell a story of Mr MacGregor working co -operatively with both Mr Matthews and Dr Wright through early 2016. However, it is telling that Mr Matthews did not disavow the emails which Dr Wright r ejects and that Mr Matthews insisted that Dr Wright was employed by Tyche Consulting. 117 89. Mr Matthews went still further, offering a detailed narrative of the reasons for, documents relating to, and terms of Dr Wright's engagement with Tyche, even confirming Dr Wright’s signature on the contract of employment.118 In another example, Mr Matthews carefully looked over an email (which had been refuted by Dr Wright when it was presented to him), 119 and not only accepted it to be genuine but confirmed the subject matter of the references being made, and volunteered sign ificant details corroborating of the content of those emails against oral discussions he had with Dr Wright. These included the anchoring details that Dr Wright made a particular request for Mr Matthews to call his ex -wife asking if she had photographs of the “server racks in the farm” – a call which Mr Matthews remembered making.120 The EITC Agreement of February

Trial document files for the COPA v Wright case. The claimant is CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE (COPA). The defendant is DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (Craig Wright). ### File name: part 12 of 82 COPA's Closing Submissions.pdf ### Folder name: Closings ### File path: /content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Skeletons/Closings/COPA's Closing Submissions.pdf ### File content: was the background leading up to it? Were there prior attempts that failed? Some of the human aspects and conflicts will be important, as well… knowledge of / interactions with DPR and others and related sites that rose to prominence in ass ociation? What security measures were taken to preserve SN’s anonymity? Why? Background on the origins of the pseudonym itself. Interactions with the inevitable shady groups and interesting characters. Inception of the super - computer and why. Why ther e? How did you convince them? Etcetera, etcetera .” The email from Mr MacGregor then turned to the “proof package”: “Finally, we’ll need to consider the “proof package” to establish SN’s identity. There will be the package that will be required by non- technical audiences (notes, etc. that document and evidence creation), but also some decisions as to how to definitively establish SN’s pedigree technically. Some of SN’s wallets are publicly known, correct? Craig, I will need you to walk me through how this could be leveraged if and when the time comes. Could SN activate and move a coin within one of these wallets? What would be sufficient proof from a technical perspective in your view?” 83. Dr Wright then answered the above questions by way of an email from his wife.111 That response included Dr Wright’s claim to have been influenced by Wei Dai’s work since the late 1990s (a claim which Dr Wright has since repeated but which, as set out below, could not be true for the real Satoshi Nakamoto). Ms Watts’ email attached a timeline, which also featured elements of the story Dr Wright has told since then.112 110 {L10/424/2} and over the page to {L10/424/3}. 111 {L10/424/1} . 112 {L10/425} , named “Timeline.docx” . 31 84. In an email dated 24 November 2015,113 from Mr MacGregor to Dr Wright (copying Mr Ayre and Mr Matthews amongst others), he said that he had met Baker McKenzie that morning, and again, referred to the “proof packet” being needed at item 5: “(5) We’re going to need to create a “proof packet” before too much longer. I’ve been thinking about this and have a couple of ideas. Activating the SN wallets goes a long way, but all it really proves is that someone is in control of SN’s private keys, which could, obviously, have been transferred or acquired otherwise. The keys, plus the documentation substantiating and documenting the original pre -publication research will be enough for 99% of the world, but we will want everything in a data room quite soon for assessment and forensic analysis if possible. Ideally, we identify a very, very credible blockchain “insider” (I’m sure you already know the shortlist directly, Craig) and then bring him/her under NDA and then into the data room. We need at least one extremely credible third party that can have examined the data room, the research, and spoken with Craig, so that in addition to the packet we have the voice of a trusted community member substantiating when the time comes .” 85. Dr Wright denied the authenticity of this email too, in the following exchange:114 “Q. Well, this one refers, at item (5), to Mr MacGregor proposing creation of a proof package -- proof packet rather, inc luding establishing control of Satoshi Nakamoto's private keys and so on. Was that being discussed by that stage, 24 November 2015? A. God, no. There's no way on earth I'd give over my damn private keys to someone. Q. No, but was that being discussed by Mr MacGregor at that stage? A. I don't know what he was discussing. I mean, honestly, if I'm not the person receiving it and it's a thing set up as Craig Wright and his company, no idea.” 86. Dr Wright responded to Mr MacGregor’s email of 24 November 2015 within 24 hours,115 giving the names of some people who could be used for the signing sessions. These included “Adam Black” (which appears twice and is a mistake Dr Wright made elsewhere, clearly getting Dr Back’s name wrong). This message also said th at “Stefan has copies of the Bitmessage and also pgp keys ”. No such Bitmessage or PGP keys have been put forward as supportive evidence.116 113 {L11/55/2} . 114 {Day7/108:22} - {Day7/109:8} . 115 {L11/55/1} . 116 No doubt the reason that Bitmessage keys were not tendered as evidence in these proceedings is that Dr Wright had come unstuck in the Kleiman proceedings, after being confronted with the origins of Bitmessage. That was first proposed at the end of 2012, in a white pape r that is in every respect a clear homage to the work Satoshi Nakamoto (and not the other way around): see {L8/49/2}. Satoshi's real PGP keys are addressed below. 32 87. As noted above, Dr Wright disavows all these emails, because they do not fit with his narrative of Mr MacGregor forcing him reluctantly into the “Big Reveal” process after the WIRED and Gizmodo articles had been published. However, it is clear from their contents that they are genuine emails, and Dr Wright’s one reason for rejecting them (i.e. that he was never employ ed by Tyche Consulting) is plainly false. 88. Mr Matthews similarly accused Mr MacGregor of bullying Dr Wright and forcing him to participate in the public revelation of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. As explained below, Mr Matthews’ account is also unre liable, since (contrary to his repeated statements) the emails tell a story of Mr MacGregor working co -operatively with both Mr Matthews and Dr Wright through early 2016. However, it is telling that Mr Matthews did not disavow the emails which Dr Wright r ejects and that Mr Matthews insisted that Dr Wright was employed by Tyche Consulting. 117 89. Mr Matthews went still further, offering a detailed narrative of the reasons for, documents relating to, and terms of Dr Wright's engagement with Tyche, even confirming Dr Wright’s signature on the contract of employment.118 In another example, Mr Matthews carefully looked over an email (which had been refuted by Dr Wright when it was presented to him), 119 and not only accepted it to be genuine but confirmed the subject matter of the references being made, and volunteered sign ificant details corroborating of the content of those emails against oral discussions he had with Dr Wright. These included the anchoring details that Dr Wright made a particular request for Mr Matthews to call his ex -wife asking if she had photographs of the “server racks in the farm” – a call which Mr Matthews remembered making.120 The EITC Agreement of February

/content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Expert Reports/Patrick Madden/First Expert Report of Patrick Madden.pdf

Patrick Madden

part 16 of 27 First Expert Report of Patrick Madden.pdf

of Patrick Madden Page 48 of 98 48interacted with by the user and which is receiving input. The term “ In f ocus ” refers to the window that is currently receiving keyboar d input (and is invariably the same as the Active window). b. It does not matter whether a user actually types into or makes changes to the document, as the Edit T ime will increase regardless. c.If a second document open in MS Word is switched to, then the Ed it Time of that second document will increase instead of the first, until switched back. “Switching to ” a window is the process of changing the active window, usually by clicking or pressing Alt- Tab. d.I emphasise that the document Edit Time increases depending on the window that was last active / in focus in MS Word . It is not affected by using different applications alongside it, so for example if a web browser is switched to and typed into while a document is open in MS Word in the background, the Edit Time property for that MS Word document will continue to increase until the document is closed or until another different MS Word document is switchedto. e.I ha ve referred to this in my report as “exclusive use" for the purpose of document editing in Word. 137. Cer tain other activity can cause the Edit Time to increase: a.If a document is saved and then re -saved, it can cause the Edit Time property to increase by 1 minute even if the time between them is less than 1 minute . b. If the operating system clock suddenly jumps from one time to another between saves while an MS Word document is the most recently activedocument, that will usually cause the Edit Time property to jump with it, and record as i f the whole intervening time had been spent editing. Sudden jumps in clock time can occur i f a computer is hibernated (a method of turning off a computer so that the user session is saved, and then restored at the point it isturned back on). They can also occur if a computer clock setting is deliberatelyedited , as I explain in detail later on in this Main Report. DocuSign Envelope ID: 38CC5CE2-703D-4A6C-A581-56AE2F5B394C First Expert Report of Patrick Madden Page 49 of 98 49138. It should therefore be impossible for two MS Word documents to record Edit Times that overlap with one another, if they are edited on the same device. In the present case, I have not been provided with detailed information about the source devices of any documents (although I understand that this was requested ), so have proceeded on the basis that documents that are similar in character and bear similar user data and other metadata are likely to have been created or edited on the same machine. 139. I cau tion that while other documents such as MS Powerpoint have similar -looking Edit Time metadata fields, the way they record metadata can be very differ ent and this analysis should not be applied to other similar looking fields outside MS Word. DOC and DOCX as “compound files” 140. Though saved as single files, both DOC and DOCX files are in fact “compound files” made up of various constituent parts (as are ma ny other file types). This is similar in concept to a ZIP file, whereby one single file is actually a container for copies of multiple other parts within it. 141. Whe n a DOC or DOCX file is opened, it is actually opening a container that holds the different parts. These can include parts relating to the main document content, formatting information,images and objects embedded within the document, and components relating to metadatainformation alone. 142. To illustrate the various files and directories within a DOCX compound file, the view below shows the view of this report document itself when the DOCX is opened in an archive viewer(in this case the widely -used viewer 7-ZIP, though other viewers such as WinZip could also be used): DocuSign Envelope ID: 38CC5CE2-703D-4A6C-A581-56AE2F5B394C First Expert Report of Patrick Madden Page 50 of 98 50The various constituent parts of this report document, including XML images, directories and other files, as viewed within an archive viewer 143. In s ome cases, MS Word documents can also contain old, partial embedded files from previous drafts of the document, such as Z IP-encoded files which themselves contain additional data not readily viewable. When it is possible to identify and isolate these, viewing those files can provide insights into the history of the document’s creation. OpenOffice 144. OpenOffice.org (“ OOo ”) is a suite of office software very similar in functionality to MS Office, but which is open-source and freely distributed. It contains various applications withinit, such as “OOo Writer” (equivalent to MS Word), “OOo Calc” (equivalent to MS Excel),“OOo Math” (a tool for creating mathematical formulas) and “OOo Impress” (equivalent to MSPowerpoint). 145. Of these , only the OOo Writer application is relevant to my analysis so I do not address other parts of the OOo suite. The file format mainly used by OOo Writer is “ODT” (standing for“Open Document Text”), which is equivalent to MS Word .DOC or .DOCX files. OOo Writer is also compatible with use and editing of . DOC and .DOCX files. 146. Ope nOffice ODT files are also compound documents, very similarly to the examples shown above, though they use different constituent parts. DocuSign Envelope ID: 38CC5CE2-703D-4A6C-A581-56AE2F5B394C First Expert Report of Patrick Madden Page 51 of 98 51147. I have analysed two specific ODT documents from the disclosure dataset, ID_000254 and ID _000260, and address the above topics in more detail in the course of the rel evant Appendices. Emails and different formats 148. There have been many email files provided within the disclosure dataset which I have analysed. 149. Va rious file formats used for storing emails include MBOX, EML, PST, and MSG . These all relate to emails, but they differ in their structure and the software applications that support them : a.MBO X is a file format used for storing multiple email messages in a single file. Multiple messages are stored sequentially, separated by blank lines, with metadata and header information included alongside each email. MBOX was originally developed forUnix and Linux systems and is an open format, which has since become much morewidely supported. Attachments may be embedded within MBOX files. b.EML is a file format used f or storing email messages as individual files. It is different to MBOX because each message is stored as a separate file, usually with a . EML file extension. EML files contain the entire message, including the header information.Attachments may be embedded in each file. c.PST ( also OST) is an Outlook Data File, a file format used by Microsoft Outlook to store email messages, contacts, calendar items, tasks, notes and other data. Within Outlook, emails are typically stored together in a single PST file rela ting to each account in use,

Trial document files for the COPA v Wright case. The claimant is CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE (COPA). The defendant is DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (Craig Wright). ### File name: part 16 of 27 First Expert Report of Patrick Madden.pdf ### Folder name: Patrick Madden ### File path: /content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Expert Reports/Patrick Madden/First Expert Report of Patrick Madden.pdf ### File content: of Patrick Madden Page 48 of 98 48interacted with by the user and which is receiving input. The term “ In f ocus ” refers to the window that is currently receiving keyboar d input (and is invariably the same as the Active window). b. It does not matter whether a user actually types into or makes changes to the document, as the Edit T ime will increase regardless. c.If a second document open in MS Word is switched to, then the Ed it Time of that second document will increase instead of the first, until switched back. “Switching to ” a window is the process of changing the active window, usually by clicking or pressing Alt- Tab. d.I emphasise that the document Edit Time increases depending on the window that was last active / in focus in MS Word . It is not affected by using different applications alongside it, so for example if a web browser is switched to and typed into while a document is open in MS Word in the background, the Edit Time property for that MS Word document will continue to increase until the document is closed or until another different MS Word document is switchedto. e.I ha ve referred to this in my report as “exclusive use" for the purpose of document editing in Word. 137. Cer tain other activity can cause the Edit Time to increase: a.If a document is saved and then re -saved, it can cause the Edit Time property to increase by 1 minute even if the time between them is less than 1 minute . b. If the operating system clock suddenly jumps from one time to another between saves while an MS Word document is the most recently activedocument, that will usually cause the Edit Time property to jump with it, and record as i f the whole intervening time had been spent editing. Sudden jumps in clock time can occur i f a computer is hibernated (a method of turning off a computer so that the user session is saved, and then restored at the point it isturned back on). They can also occur if a computer clock setting is deliberatelyedited , as I explain in detail later on in this Main Report. DocuSign Envelope ID: 38CC5CE2-703D-4A6C-A581-56AE2F5B394C First Expert Report of Patrick Madden Page 49 of 98 49138. It should therefore be impossible for two MS Word documents to record Edit Times that overlap with one another, if they are edited on the same device. In the present case, I have not been provided with detailed information about the source devices of any documents (although I understand that this was requested ), so have proceeded on the basis that documents that are similar in character and bear similar user data and other metadata are likely to have been created or edited on the same machine. 139. I cau tion that while other documents such as MS Powerpoint have similar -looking Edit Time metadata fields, the way they record metadata can be very differ ent and this analysis should not be applied to other similar looking fields outside MS Word. DOC and DOCX as “compound files” 140. Though saved as single files, both DOC and DOCX files are in fact “compound files” made up of various constituent parts (as are ma ny other file types). This is similar in concept to a ZIP file, whereby one single file is actually a container for copies of multiple other parts within it. 141. Whe n a DOC or DOCX file is opened, it is actually opening a container that holds the different parts. These can include parts relating to the main document content, formatting information,images and objects embedded within the document, and components relating to metadatainformation alone. 142. To illustrate the various files and directories within a DOCX compound file, the view below shows the view of this report document itself when the DOCX is opened in an archive viewer(in this case the widely -used viewer 7-ZIP, though other viewers such as WinZip could also be used): DocuSign Envelope ID: 38CC5CE2-703D-4A6C-A581-56AE2F5B394C First Expert Report of Patrick Madden Page 50 of 98 50The various constituent parts of this report document, including XML images, directories and other files, as viewed within an archive viewer 143. In s ome cases, MS Word documents can also contain old, partial embedded files from previous drafts of the document, such as Z IP-encoded files which themselves contain additional data not readily viewable. When it is possible to identify and isolate these, viewing those files can provide insights into the history of the document’s creation. OpenOffice 144. OpenOffice.org (“ OOo ”) is a suite of office software very similar in functionality to MS Office, but which is open-source and freely distributed. It contains various applications withinit, such as “OOo Writer” (equivalent to MS Word), “OOo Calc” (equivalent to MS Excel),“OOo Math” (a tool for creating mathematical formulas) and “OOo Impress” (equivalent to MSPowerpoint). 145. Of these , only the OOo Writer application is relevant to my analysis so I do not address other parts of the OOo suite. The file format mainly used by OOo Writer is “ODT” (standing for“Open Document Text”), which is equivalent to MS Word .DOC or .DOCX files. OOo Writer is also compatible with use and editing of . DOC and .DOCX files. 146. Ope nOffice ODT files are also compound documents, very similarly to the examples shown above, though they use different constituent parts. DocuSign Envelope ID: 38CC5CE2-703D-4A6C-A581-56AE2F5B394C First Expert Report of Patrick Madden Page 51 of 98 51147. I have analysed two specific ODT documents from the disclosure dataset, ID_000254 and ID _000260, and address the above topics in more detail in the course of the rel evant Appendices. Emails and different formats 148. There have been many email files provided within the disclosure dataset which I have analysed. 149. Va rious file formats used for storing emails include MBOX, EML, PST, and MSG . These all relate to emails, but they differ in their structure and the software applications that support them : a.MBO X is a file format used for storing multiple email messages in a single file. Multiple messages are stored sequentially, separated by blank lines, with metadata and header information included alongside each email. MBOX was originally developed forUnix and Linux systems and is an open format, which has since become much morewidely supported. Attachments may be embedded within MBOX files. b.EML is a file format used f or storing email messages as individual files. It is different to MBOX because each message is stored as a separate file, usually with a . EML file extension. EML files contain the entire message, including the header information.Attachments may be embedded in each file. c.PST ( also OST) is an Outlook Data File, a file format used by Microsoft Outlook to store email messages, contacts, calendar items, tasks, notes and other data. Within Outlook, emails are typically stored together in a single PST file rela ting to each account in use,

/content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Skeletons/Openings/COPA v Wright - Opening Skeleton of COPA.pdf

Openings

part 36 of 51 COPA v Wright - Opening Skeleton of COPA.pdf

to the differences between the document and the control version of the White Paper.348 204.4. A further touchup textedit tag was found which referenced Dr Wright’s contact details at nChain, a company which did not exist in 2008/9. 204.5. Metadata showed reference to Dr Wright’s details at nChain (which of course he did not join for many years). 204.6. Font files were embedded that included 2017 copyright notices. 204.7. There were internal metadata streams which recorded contradictory timestamps, consis tent with clock manipulation or hex editing of the timestamps. (10) King2.r tf [ID _004695] – PM46 {H/278/4} 205. This is a document which presents as an article on network security, involving discussion of quorum systems, work on which Dr Wright says fed into Bitcoin. It is a Rich Text File created with the editor version associated with the May 2020 update of Windows 10.349 It did not exist in this form before 17 September 2023, and was modified at some point between that date and 19 September 2023 with the computer set back to 2007.350 A precursor version was included in a deleted image (InfoDef09.raw ) and that deleted version was recovered. It showed (a) indications that “Craig S Wright” was the author and the operator of the software in use; (b) a timestamp dating its creation to 12 347 See the illustrative comparison document at Exhibit PM3.6 {H/26/3} . 348 See the illustrative comparison document at Exhibit PM3.7 {H/27/1} . 349 Madden 3, §86-91 {G/5/34} . 350 See Appendix PM46, §12 {H/278/4} . 81 September 2023 and a Grammarly tag with the same date; and (b) a reference to Zotero software version 6.02.27, which was not released until 5 September 2023. Dr Wright’s Excuses and Changes of Story 206. Dr Wright has a track record of excuses, both in this litigation and in his other cases, for why he has been so unfortunate in repeatedly having found himself in possession of, and deploying, documents which turn out to be forged. The common theme is that the excuses are only produced after he has been found out. Dr Wright has blamed numerous others for the inauthenticity of his documents, ranging from potential alteration by staff members (alluded to repeatedly in the Chain of Custody Schedule) to the work of his lawyers (e.g. Ontier’s transmission of the MYOB records) and the unidentified Reddit source of the forged NAB screenshots. In addition, in his recent statements (notably Wright 9 to Wright 12), he has at great length sought to present his comple x operating systems as explaining signs of apparent document alteration. 207. However, Dr Wright has consistently failed to identify anomalies in documents before others have pointed them out. Given Dr Wright’s avowed expertise in forensic document examination and IT more generally, it would be surprising if he repeatedly produced key reliance documents for a series of important legal cases without noticing serious anomalies in them. His conduct and excuses must be assessed against that professed expertise: “So I used to work in digital forensics and I have written a textbook on the subject. I taught it with the New South Wales police college, and what I have to say is the KPMG methodology is not replicable. It is not scientific.” (Granath evidence351) “As somebody who designed multiple forensic certifications, published several books and founded methodologies used within the industry, I believe that the number of people in the forensic environment who have experience with this type of IT environment and the issues it can give rise to is smaller again .” (Wright 10352) Dr Wright ’s case must be that, despite this supposedly unparalleled expertise, he either (a) failed to notice any of the myriad problems with his documents pointed out in the Madden Report, or (b) noticed some, but chose not to mention them . 351 Transcript for 14 September 2022, internal p71 {O2/11/19} . 352 Wright 10, §6 {E/31/2 }. 82 208. Similarly, as explained above, in providing Chain of Custody information, Dr Wright originally simply presented himself as author and custodian, treating requests for intermediate custodian information as disproportionate. With the service of the Madden Report, he changed tack and produced the long and confusing Chain of Custody Schedule which suggests that numerous unnamed staff members might have altered documents .353 209. More generally, the service of the Madden Report is the watershed date in the procedural history of this case. It was Mr Madden’s exhaustive and detailed unpicking of Dr Wright’s Reliance Documents which has caused so many of Dr Wright’s changes in story. As explained above, this led to (a) the provision of the Chain of Custody Schedule and the Schedule of White Paper versions (CSW5), which suggested that many of the original Relian ce Documents could have been changed by others; (b) his “discovery” of the new documents on the BDO Drive and on his Overleaf account; and (c) the complex explanation of his operating systems in Wright 9 (Appendix A) and Wright 10, which suggested that features of those systems could account for apparent signs of document alteration and tampering. 210. The excuses provided in the Chain of Custody Schedule are addressed in more detail below. In short, the Schedule is internally inconsistent and unreliable, as demonstrated by Madden 2 and Appendices PM43 and PM44. It also takes a position which is at odds with previous chain of custody information (which simply presented Dr Wright as author and custodian). 211. The BDO Drive raw image has been shown to

Trial document files for the COPA v Wright case. The claimant is CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE (COPA). The defendant is DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (Craig Wright). ### File name: part 36 of 51 COPA v Wright - Opening Skeleton of COPA.pdf ### Folder name: Openings ### File path: /content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Skeletons/Openings/COPA v Wright - Opening Skeleton of COPA.pdf ### File content: to the differences between the document and the control version of the White Paper.348 204.4. A further touchup textedit tag was found which referenced Dr Wright’s contact details at nChain, a company which did not exist in 2008/9. 204.5. Metadata showed reference to Dr Wright’s details at nChain (which of course he did not join for many years). 204.6. Font files were embedded that included 2017 copyright notices. 204.7. There were internal metadata streams which recorded contradictory timestamps, consis tent with clock manipulation or hex editing of the timestamps. (10) King2.r tf [ID _004695] – PM46 {H/278/4} 205. This is a document which presents as an article on network security, involving discussion of quorum systems, work on which Dr Wright says fed into Bitcoin. It is a Rich Text File created with the editor version associated with the May 2020 update of Windows 10.349 It did not exist in this form before 17 September 2023, and was modified at some point between that date and 19 September 2023 with the computer set back to 2007.350 A precursor version was included in a deleted image (InfoDef09.raw ) and that deleted version was recovered. It showed (a) indications that “Craig S Wright” was the author and the operator of the software in use; (b) a timestamp dating its creation to 12 347 See the illustrative comparison document at Exhibit PM3.6 {H/26/3} . 348 See the illustrative comparison document at Exhibit PM3.7 {H/27/1} . 349 Madden 3, §86-91 {G/5/34} . 350 See Appendix PM46, §12 {H/278/4} . 81 September 2023 and a Grammarly tag with the same date; and (b) a reference to Zotero software version 6.02.27, which was not released until 5 September 2023. Dr Wright’s Excuses and Changes of Story 206. Dr Wright has a track record of excuses, both in this litigation and in his other cases, for why he has been so unfortunate in repeatedly having found himself in possession of, and deploying, documents which turn out to be forged. The common theme is that the excuses are only produced after he has been found out. Dr Wright has blamed numerous others for the inauthenticity of his documents, ranging from potential alteration by staff members (alluded to repeatedly in the Chain of Custody Schedule) to the work of his lawyers (e.g. Ontier’s transmission of the MYOB records) and the unidentified Reddit source of the forged NAB screenshots. In addition, in his recent statements (notably Wright 9 to Wright 12), he has at great length sought to present his comple x operating systems as explaining signs of apparent document alteration. 207. However, Dr Wright has consistently failed to identify anomalies in documents before others have pointed them out. Given Dr Wright’s avowed expertise in forensic document examination and IT more generally, it would be surprising if he repeatedly produced key reliance documents for a series of important legal cases without noticing serious anomalies in them. His conduct and excuses must be assessed against that professed expertise: “So I used to work in digital forensics and I have written a textbook on the subject. I taught it with the New South Wales police college, and what I have to say is the KPMG methodology is not replicable. It is not scientific.” (Granath evidence351) “As somebody who designed multiple forensic certifications, published several books and founded methodologies used within the industry, I believe that the number of people in the forensic environment who have experience with this type of IT environment and the issues it can give rise to is smaller again .” (Wright 10352) Dr Wright ’s case must be that, despite this supposedly unparalleled expertise, he either (a) failed to notice any of the myriad problems with his documents pointed out in the Madden Report, or (b) noticed some, but chose not to mention them . 351 Transcript for 14 September 2022, internal p71 {O2/11/19} . 352 Wright 10, §6 {E/31/2 }. 82 208. Similarly, as explained above, in providing Chain of Custody information, Dr Wright originally simply presented himself as author and custodian, treating requests for intermediate custodian information as disproportionate. With the service of the Madden Report, he changed tack and produced the long and confusing Chain of Custody Schedule which suggests that numerous unnamed staff members might have altered documents .353 209. More generally, the service of the Madden Report is the watershed date in the procedural history of this case. It was Mr Madden’s exhaustive and detailed unpicking of Dr Wright’s Reliance Documents which has caused so many of Dr Wright’s changes in story. As explained above, this led to (a) the provision of the Chain of Custody Schedule and the Schedule of White Paper versions (CSW5), which suggested that many of the original Relian ce Documents could have been changed by others; (b) his “discovery” of the new documents on the BDO Drive and on his Overleaf account; and (c) the complex explanation of his operating systems in Wright 9 (Appendix A) and Wright 10, which suggested that features of those systems could account for apparent signs of document alteration and tampering. 210. The excuses provided in the Chain of Custody Schedule are addressed in more detail below. In short, the Schedule is internally inconsistent and unreliable, as demonstrated by Madden 2 and Appendices PM43 and PM44. It also takes a position which is at odds with previous chain of custody information (which simply presented Dr Wright as author and custodian). 211. The BDO Drive raw image has been shown to

/content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Skeletons/Closings/Appendix B to COPA's Closing Submissions - Schedule of Transcript References.pdf

Closings

part 96 of 220 Appendix B to COPA's Closing Submissions - Schedule of Transcript References.pdf

No, actually, Greg Maxwell and a few of the other COPA members contacted WIRED and put together what has already been debunked, false information, as well as some of this other stuff that they put together. So one of the people involved was Mr Greg Maxw ell - Q. I'm going to dispute - just to stop you on all of these allegations, Dr Wright. I've asked a simple question, which was that the article speculated that it might be an elaborate hoax. If we look page 13 {L11/212/13}, at the bottom, over to page 14 {L11/212/14}, we can see that it did speculate that, didn't it? A. No, it was changed after information came in to them. And it's not a speculation, Mr Maxwell actually published it. Dr Wright blaming third parties for the documents in the WIRED article, namely Greg Maxwell, and not accepting the obvious truth of the documents. {Day7/124:18} - {Day7/125:22} Q. You went to great efforts, didn't you, Dr Wright, to produce articles to try to rebut the suggestion that these keys were unreliable, didn't you? You produced papers and articles about it, didn't you? A. I produce papers every day. I've produced two pa pers today, I filed two yesterday. So, yes, I produced one. What I demonstrated was that he was wrong. What I noted was that he was basically out there slandering me for something that was completely false. Q. You now say, don't you, that many, or most, or all of the pieces of evidence that WIRED and Gizmodo had were fake or doctored, don't you? A. No, some were, some weren't; there was a mixture. But what happened was, they mixed the real evidence and tainted evidence so that all the real evidence is jus t tainted with the same brush now. Dr Wright provides an incoherent and implausible explanation in relation t o the evidence that WIRED and Gizmodo had, and blames third parties (Greg Maxwell). Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 239 REFERENCE QUOTE COMMENT Q. Well, Dr Wright, I suggest it's pretty extraordinary to go to great efforts to rebut Mr Maxwell's piece undermining keys which you don't say were your own anyway. A. No, one of them was mine. That's the whole point. There were one known key, one my key and three other keys, so the whole thing is you throw everything at the wall, like this whole case, and you hope something sticks. So, what happens is, you say that my key's also fabricated, as well as the other keys. S o you throw in three fabricated keys, two real keys, and then you can run round going, "See, they're all fabricated; don't look at these ones over here, don't look at the real one". {L11/285/1} -3. Implementation Deed 07 01 16 Final Fully Executed {Day7/126:8} - {Day7/127:23} Q. You physically moved with your family after these articles, didn't you. A. I physically moved before. My son started school here in July. My daughter started school shortly after that. My wife first came in September. I went in October. I came back to do the transitioning, then I came back here. So, we'd already found a house, we were living in a hotel at that point, but we were transitioning back and forwards. So my argument is, I'd already moved, I'd already become a resident. Q. Moving on to early 2016 at {L11/285/1}, please. Do you recall this document, an agreement being entered into with you, on Baker & McKenzie regalia, dated 7 January 2016? A. I mean, it's on a Baker & McKenzie letterhead, because they did it, but I don't actually know if I'd c all it "regalia". Q. Just focus on the document, please. {L11/285/3} was a document that, on its face, provides for the various elements of the term sheet you'd entered into in June 2015 to be brought into effect. Do you remember signing an agreement to t hat effect? A. Not the way you're describing it. The January document was changed quite a lot. Robert changed it significantly after all the WIRED and Gizmodo stuff came out. Q. What does Robert MacGregor have to do with this agreement? A. Stefan and St erling Group is only brokering it; Robert was the person doing it. NewCo was mostly - what do you call it - Rob MacGregor, and he was the person behind the deal. Dr Wright is asked about the Implementation Deed at {L11/285/1} and whether he entered into this, Dr Wright is overly pedantic in response but when pressed accepts that he entered into this agreement. Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 240 REFERENCE QUOTE COMMENT Q. So do you say that this isn't a genuine agreement, this document we're looking at here? A. No, it is an agreement, but if it's brokered by a company, that's still an agreement. And as you note, I have already got an address here in - well, at that point, Wimbledon. I'm not in Wimbledon any more. Q. Simple question: did you enter into an agree ment on the terms of this document? A. Like I just said, yes. {Day7/127:24} - {Day7/128:14} Q. Page 6 {L11/285/6}, we can see it included further provision on each aspect of the heads of terms, here for the IP asset purchase, yes? A. Correct. Q. Page 10 {L11/285/10}, section 7 addressed the rights and services agreement; do you see that? A. I do. Q. And clause 7.2(c) on the next page {L11/285/11}, said that you would also: “... in due course, enter into an additional services agreement with Ncrypt Holdings ... for completion of certain services relating to recounting and transcribing [your] history [ for ] $750,000 ...” A. I do. Q. So that was a term to which you agreed at that time? A. I didn’t really have much of a choice, but, yes. Dr Wright admitting that he agreed to clause 7.2(c), about entering into a services agreement for “ completion of certain services relating to recounting and transcribing [your] history…”. {L11/342/4} - Life Story Rights and Services Agreement {Day7/128:15} - {Day7/129:21} Q. And {L11/342/1}, "Life Story Rights and Services Agreement", between you and EITC Holdings Limited. Is this a genuine agreement into which you entered on 17 February 2016? A. It is. Q. And if we go to the final page of this document, which I think is either page 3 or page 4, we'll see the signatures.

Trial document files for the COPA v Wright case. The claimant is CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE (COPA). The defendant is DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (Craig Wright). ### File name: part 96 of 220 Appendix B to COPA's Closing Submissions - Schedule of Transcript References.pdf ### Folder name: Closings ### File path: /content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Skeletons/Closings/Appendix B to COPA's Closing Submissions - Schedule of Transcript References.pdf ### File content: No, actually, Greg Maxwell and a few of the other COPA members contacted WIRED and put together what has already been debunked, false information, as well as some of this other stuff that they put together. So one of the people involved was Mr Greg Maxw ell - Q. I'm going to dispute - just to stop you on all of these allegations, Dr Wright. I've asked a simple question, which was that the article speculated that it might be an elaborate hoax. If we look page 13 {L11/212/13}, at the bottom, over to page 14 {L11/212/14}, we can see that it did speculate that, didn't it? A. No, it was changed after information came in to them. And it's not a speculation, Mr Maxwell actually published it. Dr Wright blaming third parties for the documents in the WIRED article, namely Greg Maxwell, and not accepting the obvious truth of the documents. {Day7/124:18} - {Day7/125:22} Q. You went to great efforts, didn't you, Dr Wright, to produce articles to try to rebut the suggestion that these keys were unreliable, didn't you? You produced papers and articles about it, didn't you? A. I produce papers every day. I've produced two pa pers today, I filed two yesterday. So, yes, I produced one. What I demonstrated was that he was wrong. What I noted was that he was basically out there slandering me for something that was completely false. Q. You now say, don't you, that many, or most, or all of the pieces of evidence that WIRED and Gizmodo had were fake or doctored, don't you? A. No, some were, some weren't; there was a mixture. But what happened was, they mixed the real evidence and tainted evidence so that all the real evidence is jus t tainted with the same brush now. Dr Wright provides an incoherent and implausible explanation in relation t o the evidence that WIRED and Gizmodo had, and blames third parties (Greg Maxwell). Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 239 REFERENCE QUOTE COMMENT Q. Well, Dr Wright, I suggest it's pretty extraordinary to go to great efforts to rebut Mr Maxwell's piece undermining keys which you don't say were your own anyway. A. No, one of them was mine. That's the whole point. There were one known key, one my key and three other keys, so the whole thing is you throw everything at the wall, like this whole case, and you hope something sticks. So, what happens is, you say that my key's also fabricated, as well as the other keys. S o you throw in three fabricated keys, two real keys, and then you can run round going, "See, they're all fabricated; don't look at these ones over here, don't look at the real one". {L11/285/1} -3. Implementation Deed 07 01 16 Final Fully Executed {Day7/126:8} - {Day7/127:23} Q. You physically moved with your family after these articles, didn't you. A. I physically moved before. My son started school here in July. My daughter started school shortly after that. My wife first came in September. I went in October. I came back to do the transitioning, then I came back here. So, we'd already found a house, we were living in a hotel at that point, but we were transitioning back and forwards. So my argument is, I'd already moved, I'd already become a resident. Q. Moving on to early 2016 at {L11/285/1}, please. Do you recall this document, an agreement being entered into with you, on Baker & McKenzie regalia, dated 7 January 2016? A. I mean, it's on a Baker & McKenzie letterhead, because they did it, but I don't actually know if I'd c all it "regalia". Q. Just focus on the document, please. {L11/285/3} was a document that, on its face, provides for the various elements of the term sheet you'd entered into in June 2015 to be brought into effect. Do you remember signing an agreement to t hat effect? A. Not the way you're describing it. The January document was changed quite a lot. Robert changed it significantly after all the WIRED and Gizmodo stuff came out. Q. What does Robert MacGregor have to do with this agreement? A. Stefan and St erling Group is only brokering it; Robert was the person doing it. NewCo was mostly - what do you call it - Rob MacGregor, and he was the person behind the deal. Dr Wright is asked about the Implementation Deed at {L11/285/1} and whether he entered into this, Dr Wright is overly pedantic in response but when pressed accepts that he entered into this agreement. Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 240 REFERENCE QUOTE COMMENT Q. So do you say that this isn't a genuine agreement, this document we're looking at here? A. No, it is an agreement, but if it's brokered by a company, that's still an agreement. And as you note, I have already got an address here in - well, at that point, Wimbledon. I'm not in Wimbledon any more. Q. Simple question: did you enter into an agree ment on the terms of this document? A. Like I just said, yes. {Day7/127:24} - {Day7/128:14} Q. Page 6 {L11/285/6}, we can see it included further provision on each aspect of the heads of terms, here for the IP asset purchase, yes? A. Correct. Q. Page 10 {L11/285/10}, section 7 addressed the rights and services agreement; do you see that? A. I do. Q. And clause 7.2(c) on the next page {L11/285/11}, said that you would also: “... in due course, enter into an additional services agreement with Ncrypt Holdings ... for completion of certain services relating to recounting and transcribing [your] history [ for ] $750,000 ...” A. I do. Q. So that was a term to which you agreed at that time? A. I didn’t really have much of a choice, but, yes. Dr Wright admitting that he agreed to clause 7.2(c), about entering into a services agreement for “ completion of certain services relating to recounting and transcribing [your] history…”. {L11/342/4} - Life Story Rights and Services Agreement {Day7/128:15} - {Day7/129:21} Q. And {L11/342/1}, "Life Story Rights and Services Agreement", between you and EITC Holdings Limited. Is this a genuine agreement into which you entered on 17 February 2016? A. It is. Q. And if we go to the final page of this document, which I think is either page 3 or page 4, we'll see the signatures.

/content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Skeletons/Closings/Appendix A to COPA's Closing Submissions - Consolidated Forgery Schedule.pdf

Closings

part 29 of 50 Appendix A to COPA's Closing Submissions - Consolidated Forgery Schedule.pdf

document dating from 2008, contrary to fact. Dr Wright’s explanations should be rejected, for the followin g reasons: a. Mr Madden established in appendix PM44 that this document derived from {ID_000537}. 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 Univers ity), they were found to be entirely identical on their face once {ID_000537} (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. b. The document at {ID_000537} contained numerous artefacts in its metadata which were indicative of backdating: a metadata reference t o an invalid version of XMP Core; Touchup_textedit history shared with {ID_000536}; a redundant metadata Appendix A to COPA’s Closing Skeleton Argument Consolidated Schedule of Dr Wright’s Forgeries Page 96 of 167 field for creation date which matched that of the published (2009) version of the White Paper. See PM3 at paras. 133 -137. Dr Wright had no proper explanation for those anomalous artefacts in the source document. c. 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}. d. Dr Wright and Stefan Matthews have since 2015 claimed that Dr Wri ght 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 S eptember 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}. e. Dr Wright’s cover story for this document relies upon his account that the Bitcoin White Paper and its precursor drafts were written in L ATEX. For the reasons given in detail in the expert report of Mr Rosendahl (and as agreed in the joint expert statement with Mr Lync h), that account is itself false. f. 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. Appendix A to COPA’s Closing Skeleton Argument Consolidated Schedule of Dr Wright’s Forgeries Page 97 of 167 {ID_004013} / {L2/159/1} Handwritten BDO Minutes (Reliance Document) 1. The document presents as a set of minutes of a meeting attended by Dr Wright and Alan Granger, dated “Aug 07”, at BDO. It refers to “timechain”, “P2p ecash”, and “write paper”, as connected concepts to Dr Wright’s purported creation of Bitcoin, and presents as if it concerns planning for work to be done by Dr Wright and Mr Granger throughout 2007 and 2008. Reasons for Allegation of Forgery 2. The document is handwritten on a pre -printed pad that was manufactured in China. Bird & Bird has obtained a copy of the original PDF print proof document of the pad directly from the manufacturer. The copy of the original PDF proof document is an authentic document. [PM5 at 3- 17 and 25] 3. The handwritten document {ID_004013} perfectly matches the pre -printed template in the version of the PDF print proofs known as Exhibit MS1 (the first proof of the relevant notepad product). [PM5 at 17- 25] 4. The PDF print proofs known as Exhibit MS1, which this document matc hes, date from no earlier than 6 November to 9 November 2009. [PM5 at 3- 17 and 25] 5. The face- value date of August 2007 is therefore false and misleading. 6. Further, the purported notes of planning for work to be done throughout 2007 and 2008 are also therefo re false and misleading. Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 7. Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 8. 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. as creating a document which suggests that Dr Wright was developing Bitcoin in 2007 and had shared details of his work with Mr Granger), contrary to fact. Appendix A to COPA’s Closing Skeleton Argument Consolidated Schedule of Dr Wright’s Forgeries Page 98 of 167 9. Dr Wright has relied on this document in previous proceedings, including on oath. 10. The document is in Dr Wright’s own handwriting. 11. In the document, Dr Wright has named himself as present at the purported meeting, in his own handwriting. 12. Dr Wright purports to have attended a meeting and taken these minutes himself. Dr Wright must know from his own experience that the meeting, and the purported minutes of the meeting, are false. 13. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on a purported discussion of Bitcoin between him and Alan Granger, among other work done with Alan Granger around 2007. [ Wright 1 at 48- 52] 14. In his chain of custody information in these proceedings, Dr Wright claims to have drafted this document himself. 15. When disclosing this document, Dr Wright did not specify a date for the document. When requested to provide a date for thi s document, Dr Wright refused to do so. Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 16. In Appendix B to Wright 11, Dr Wright insisted that the document dated from August 2007. He disputed the evidence provided by COPA to the effect that the Quill minutes pad in this form was not produced as a proof until 2009 and was not printed and shipped until 2012 (see confirmation letter of Mr Stathakis and Ms

Trial document files for the COPA v Wright case. The claimant is CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE (COPA). The defendant is DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (Craig Wright). ### File name: part 29 of 50 Appendix A to COPA's Closing Submissions - Consolidated Forgery Schedule.pdf ### Folder name: Closings ### File path: /content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Skeletons/Closings/Appendix A to COPA's Closing Submissions - Consolidated Forgery Schedule.pdf ### File content: document dating from 2008, contrary to fact. Dr Wright’s explanations should be rejected, for the followin g reasons: a. Mr Madden established in appendix PM44 that this document derived from {ID_000537}. 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 Univers ity), they were found to be entirely identical on their face once {ID_000537} (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. b. The document at {ID_000537} contained numerous artefacts in its metadata which were indicative of backdating: a metadata reference t o an invalid version of XMP Core; Touchup_textedit history shared with {ID_000536}; a redundant metadata Appendix A to COPA’s Closing Skeleton Argument Consolidated Schedule of Dr Wright’s Forgeries Page 96 of 167 field for creation date which matched that of the published (2009) version of the White Paper. See PM3 at paras. 133 -137. Dr Wright had no proper explanation for those anomalous artefacts in the source document. c. 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}. d. Dr Wright and Stefan Matthews have since 2015 claimed that Dr Wri ght 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 S eptember 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}. e. Dr Wright’s cover story for this document relies upon his account that the Bitcoin White Paper and its precursor drafts were written in L ATEX. For the reasons given in detail in the expert report of Mr Rosendahl (and as agreed in the joint expert statement with Mr Lync h), that account is itself false. f. 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. Appendix A to COPA’s Closing Skeleton Argument Consolidated Schedule of Dr Wright’s Forgeries Page 97 of 167 {ID_004013} / {L2/159/1} Handwritten BDO Minutes (Reliance Document) 1. The document presents as a set of minutes of a meeting attended by Dr Wright and Alan Granger, dated “Aug 07”, at BDO. It refers to “timechain”, “P2p ecash”, and “write paper”, as connected concepts to Dr Wright’s purported creation of Bitcoin, and presents as if it concerns planning for work to be done by Dr Wright and Mr Granger throughout 2007 and 2008. Reasons for Allegation of Forgery 2. The document is handwritten on a pre -printed pad that was manufactured in China. Bird & Bird has obtained a copy of the original PDF print proof document of the pad directly from the manufacturer. The copy of the original PDF proof document is an authentic document. [PM5 at 3- 17 and 25] 3. The handwritten document {ID_004013} perfectly matches the pre -printed template in the version of the PDF print proofs known as Exhibit MS1 (the first proof of the relevant notepad product). [PM5 at 17- 25] 4. The PDF print proofs known as Exhibit MS1, which this document matc hes, date from no earlier than 6 November to 9 November 2009. [PM5 at 3- 17 and 25] 5. The face- value date of August 2007 is therefore false and misleading. 6. Further, the purported notes of planning for work to be done throughout 2007 and 2008 are also therefo re false and misleading. Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 7. Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 8. 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. as creating a document which suggests that Dr Wright was developing Bitcoin in 2007 and had shared details of his work with Mr Granger), contrary to fact. Appendix A to COPA’s Closing Skeleton Argument Consolidated Schedule of Dr Wright’s Forgeries Page 98 of 167 9. Dr Wright has relied on this document in previous proceedings, including on oath. 10. The document is in Dr Wright’s own handwriting. 11. In the document, Dr Wright has named himself as present at the purported meeting, in his own handwriting. 12. Dr Wright purports to have attended a meeting and taken these minutes himself. Dr Wright must know from his own experience that the meeting, and the purported minutes of the meeting, are false. 13. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on a purported discussion of Bitcoin between him and Alan Granger, among other work done with Alan Granger around 2007. [ Wright 1 at 48- 52] 14. In his chain of custody information in these proceedings, Dr Wright claims to have drafted this document himself. 15. When disclosing this document, Dr Wright did not specify a date for the document. When requested to provide a date for thi s document, Dr Wright refused to do so. Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 16. In Appendix B to Wright 11, Dr Wright insisted that the document dated from August 2007. He disputed the evidence provided by COPA to the effect that the Quill minutes pad in this form was not produced as a proof until 2009 and was not printed and shipped until 2012 (see confirmation letter of Mr Stathakis and Ms

/content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Skeletons/Closings/Appendix B to COPA's Closing Submissions - Schedule of Transcript References.pdf

Closings

part 208 of 220 Appendix B to COPA's Closing Submissions - Schedule of Transcript References.pdf

it? A. No, I actually didn't want an adjournment. I actually had a fight with my lawyers over that and they made it happen. Q. Dr Wright, your presentation of those documents as uniquely coding for the Bitcoin White Paper was a fraud on us and on COPA, wasn't it? A. No, I actually believe Mr Ager -Hanssen is working with you guys. Dr Wright blaming third parties, who allegedly created forgeries and loaded them onto his machine. Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 527 REFERENCE QUOTE COMMENT Q. Dr Wright, the Bitcoin White Paper wasn't even written in LaTeX, as you would have known if you were Satoshi Nakamoto. A. It actually was. Q. And your claim - A. The fact that I use differ ent tools and integrate them in unusual ways is also something that I do. Q. Dr Wright, your claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto is a fraudulent claim, isn't it? A. No, not at all. In fact, I wouldn't need to actually claim to be Satoshi, I have now proveabl y scaled beyond anything Silicon Valley can do. We have created a system that's doing 1.1 million transactions a second live, my Lord. That exceeds the capability of Oracle, it exceeds the capability of Microsoft, who are now talking to us, it exceeds any -- and they will argue centralised, except it's distributed. No Oracle database, as a centralised system, can do a million transactions a second, my Lord. That's actually running, and we now have governments involved in that, and none of them care tha t I'm Satoshi or not. What they care about is we have a distributed blockchain that is scaling to 1.1 million plus transactions a second continuously. Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 528 REFERENCE QUOTE COMMENT DAY 18 CROSS -EXAMINATION OF MR ZEMING GAO BY MR HOUGH {Day18/4:19} - {Day18/5:9} Q. Now, assuming that the KeyGen algorithm produced the key pair in a properly random manner, is it right that it should be practically impossible then to compute the private key given only the public key? A. Yes. Q. Is this right also : for the purpose of verification , it’s important that the message being signed is a new one chosen by the person who is verifying possession? A. Yes, but if you can assure that the signature, that message has never been signed before, the – you know, the old message can be signed freshly. Q. That’s the point, isn ’t it ? A. Yeah. Q. That you want to avoid the person who supposedly has the private key producing a message which has been signed in the past with that private key? A. That’s true. Q. Because that would be a replay attack, wouldn’t it? A. Yes. Mr Gao agreeing with the importance of using a previously unsigned message (i.e. avoiding a replay attack). {Day18/5:17} - {Day18/5:24} Q. But this protection against a replay attack wouldn’t be increased in that scenario if I insisted on adding some words? So for example, if I insisted on adding the words “before Mr Justice Mellor” to that text – A. No. Q. – is that right? So it wouldn’t improve the – A. It wouldn’t improve, yeah. Mr Gao accepting that the security of a signing is not enhanced by adding letters to a message (e.g. Wright adding “CSW” to the message during the Andresen Signing session – adding ”CSW”). Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 529 {Day18/7:13} - {Day18/8:3} Q. Yes. Now, suppose a person provides a digitally signed message to another person by putting it onto a USB stick, putting the signed message onto a USB stick and handing it over to that other person, and suppose that that other person knows the public key, for example, because they’ve brought a list of public keys with them; do you understand? A. Yeah. Q. There ’s no real risk, is there, that the person who receives the USB stick and plugs it into their computer can, from that, compute or derive the private key? A. Practically not possible. Q. And when you say “practically not possible”, it’s just infeasible with current computing power, isn’t it? A. I would think so. Mr Gao agreeing that there was no risk of Gavin Andresen being able to derive the private key from a digitally signed message put on a USB which he could then verify on his own computer. {Day18/8:9} - {Day18/9:8} Q. So suppose that the person who’s doing the verifying selects the message on their own and tells that message to Dr Wright, an entirely new message, okay? A. Mm -hm. Q. And suppose that, secondly, Dr Wright, assuming he has a private key associated with an early block, which we obviously dispute, signs the message on his computer with that private key and puts the signed message onto a USB stick, right? A. Yes. Q. With me so far? Thirdly, the verifier takes that USB stick and plugs it into their own computer, takes out the message and runs their own verification program on it on their own computer. A. Mm -hm. Q. Yes? And they do so by reference to a public key which the verifier has noted down and brough t with them, okay? A. Yes. Q. And it’s right in fact that that could be done without the verifier even having their computer connected to the internet, they could just have the verification program on it, right? A. As long as they have the right software. Mr Gao agreeing that it was unnecessary to connect to the internet in order to verify the message. {Day18/9:10} - {Day18/10:3} Now, each stage in that process would be terribly simple, no great complexity or technical difficulty? A. I suppose. Q. It wouldn’t involve anyone doing any downloads, would it? Mr Gao accepting that there is a much easier way to prove access to the private key. Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 530 A. If the device didn’t have the software, he would have to download the soft ware. Q. But if the person doing the verifying already had a verification – form of verification software? A. Then no downloads required. Q. No downloads needed? A. Yeah. Q. It would be very quick, wouldn’t it, it could be done in a matter of minutes? A. Yes. Q. And there would be no real risk in that scenario that the session was being spoofed would there?

Trial document files for the COPA v Wright case. The claimant is CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE (COPA). The defendant is DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (Craig Wright). ### File name: part 208 of 220 Appendix B to COPA's Closing Submissions - Schedule of Transcript References.pdf ### Folder name: Closings ### File path: /content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Skeletons/Closings/Appendix B to COPA's Closing Submissions - Schedule of Transcript References.pdf ### File content: it? A. No, I actually didn't want an adjournment. I actually had a fight with my lawyers over that and they made it happen. Q. Dr Wright, your presentation of those documents as uniquely coding for the Bitcoin White Paper was a fraud on us and on COPA, wasn't it? A. No, I actually believe Mr Ager -Hanssen is working with you guys. Dr Wright blaming third parties, who allegedly created forgeries and loaded them onto his machine. Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 527 REFERENCE QUOTE COMMENT Q. Dr Wright, the Bitcoin White Paper wasn't even written in LaTeX, as you would have known if you were Satoshi Nakamoto. A. It actually was. Q. And your claim - A. The fact that I use differ ent tools and integrate them in unusual ways is also something that I do. Q. Dr Wright, your claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto is a fraudulent claim, isn't it? A. No, not at all. In fact, I wouldn't need to actually claim to be Satoshi, I have now proveabl y scaled beyond anything Silicon Valley can do. We have created a system that's doing 1.1 million transactions a second live, my Lord. That exceeds the capability of Oracle, it exceeds the capability of Microsoft, who are now talking to us, it exceeds any -- and they will argue centralised, except it's distributed. No Oracle database, as a centralised system, can do a million transactions a second, my Lord. That's actually running, and we now have governments involved in that, and none of them care tha t I'm Satoshi or not. What they care about is we have a distributed blockchain that is scaling to 1.1 million plus transactions a second continuously. Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 528 REFERENCE QUOTE COMMENT DAY 18 CROSS -EXAMINATION OF MR ZEMING GAO BY MR HOUGH {Day18/4:19} - {Day18/5:9} Q. Now, assuming that the KeyGen algorithm produced the key pair in a properly random manner, is it right that it should be practically impossible then to compute the private key given only the public key? A. Yes. Q. Is this right also : for the purpose of verification , it’s important that the message being signed is a new one chosen by the person who is verifying possession? A. Yes, but if you can assure that the signature, that message has never been signed before, the – you know, the old message can be signed freshly. Q. That’s the point, isn ’t it ? A. Yeah. Q. That you want to avoid the person who supposedly has the private key producing a message which has been signed in the past with that private key? A. That’s true. Q. Because that would be a replay attack, wouldn’t it? A. Yes. Mr Gao agreeing with the importance of using a previously unsigned message (i.e. avoiding a replay attack). {Day18/5:17} - {Day18/5:24} Q. But this protection against a replay attack wouldn’t be increased in that scenario if I insisted on adding some words? So for example, if I insisted on adding the words “before Mr Justice Mellor” to that text – A. No. Q. – is that right? So it wouldn’t improve the – A. It wouldn’t improve, yeah. Mr Gao accepting that the security of a signing is not enhanced by adding letters to a message (e.g. Wright adding “CSW” to the message during the Andresen Signing session – adding ”CSW”). Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 529 {Day18/7:13} - {Day18/8:3} Q. Yes. Now, suppose a person provides a digitally signed message to another person by putting it onto a USB stick, putting the signed message onto a USB stick and handing it over to that other person, and suppose that that other person knows the public key, for example, because they’ve brought a list of public keys with them; do you understand? A. Yeah. Q. There ’s no real risk, is there, that the person who receives the USB stick and plugs it into their computer can, from that, compute or derive the private key? A. Practically not possible. Q. And when you say “practically not possible”, it’s just infeasible with current computing power, isn’t it? A. I would think so. Mr Gao agreeing that there was no risk of Gavin Andresen being able to derive the private key from a digitally signed message put on a USB which he could then verify on his own computer. {Day18/8:9} - {Day18/9:8} Q. So suppose that the person who’s doing the verifying selects the message on their own and tells that message to Dr Wright, an entirely new message, okay? A. Mm -hm. Q. And suppose that, secondly, Dr Wright, assuming he has a private key associated with an early block, which we obviously dispute, signs the message on his computer with that private key and puts the signed message onto a USB stick, right? A. Yes. Q. With me so far? Thirdly, the verifier takes that USB stick and plugs it into their own computer, takes out the message and runs their own verification program on it on their own computer. A. Mm -hm. Q. Yes? And they do so by reference to a public key which the verifier has noted down and brough t with them, okay? A. Yes. Q. And it’s right in fact that that could be done without the verifier even having their computer connected to the internet, they could just have the verification program on it, right? A. As long as they have the right software. Mr Gao agreeing that it was unnecessary to connect to the internet in order to verify the message. {Day18/9:10} - {Day18/10:3} Now, each stage in that process would be terribly simple, no great complexity or technical difficulty? A. I suppose. Q. It wouldn’t involve anyone doing any downloads, would it? Mr Gao accepting that there is a much easier way to prove access to the private key. Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 530 A. If the device didn’t have the software, he would have to download the soft ware. Q. But if the person doing the verifying already had a verification – form of verification software? A. Then no downloads required. Q. No downloads needed? A. Yeah. Q. It would be very quick, wouldn’t it, it could be done in a matter of minutes? A. Yes. Q. And there would be no real risk in that scenario that the session was being spoofed would there?

/content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Skeletons/Closings/Appendix A to COPA's Closing Submissions - Consolidated Forgery Schedule.pdf

Closings

part 48 of 50 Appendix A to COPA's Closing Submissions - Consolidated Forgery Schedule.pdf

in the circumstances or explain the irregularities. d. The use of a version of Windows Text Editor dating from 2020 shows these documents were not contemporaneous to the alleged time capsule. e. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_000473 was manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Appendix A to COPA’s Closing Skeleton Argument Consolidated Schedule of Dr Wright’s Forgeries Page 159 of 167 {ID_0 04736} {PTR -F/93/1} “ESDT.tex” 1. The document is a LaTeX source presented as if it was precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper created during Dr Wright’s employment at BDO. Dr Wright relies upon it as a draft addressing technical concepts which influenced his development of Bitcoin. Reasons for Allegation of Forgery 2. 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 / Lynch 1 at 12 Q/6/5]. 3. Copies of the document are also located on the Samsung Drive. These copies display signs of metadata editing and clock manipulation. [PM46 at 74- 79 H/278/17] 4. A related LaTeX file has been recovered which encodes the same textual content in a different way. That document had been deleted but was recoverable from within the Samsung Drive. The structure of that file is consistent with the file being generated automatically by software conversion tools (rather than being authored by hand). [Mad den 4 at 67 -70 H/278/16]. 5. There is a related file {ID_004735} which appears intended to create an image for the paper. The code in that file is consistent with having been generated by conversion tools such as Aspose. [Madden 3 at 75 G/5/31] 6. A related document, ESDT.pdf, was recovered from the Samsung Drive. ESDT.pdf was a compiled form of {ID_004736} but was deleted and emptied from the Recycle Bin in September 2023 [PM46 at 41- 52 H/278/10]. The metadata associated with the deleted file indicates that it was modified on 16 September 2023, but the other timestamps have been backdated to 31 October 2007. 7. The metadata of this document (when compared with metadata of other documents related to it) displays signs of metadata editing directly using specialised metadata editing tools. [Madden 3 at 52- 63 G/5/23] 8. 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. Appendix A to COPA’s Closing Skeleton Argument Consolidated Schedule of Dr Wright’s Forgeries Page 160 of 167 Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsi bility 9. 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. 10. The further effect of tampering is to lend support to Dr Wright’s new position that the Bitcoin White Paper w as created in LaTeX. That story is a recent product of Dr Wright’s change in his account. 11. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. Paragraph 13 of the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 12. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: a. 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" [ Wright 6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field 1, L20/223/4] b. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is a version of “ a paper prepared for a 360º Security Summit on 15 June 2006 concerned with “Implementing Effective Risk -Based Controls”, which Dr Wright prepared in his role at BDO. The hash chain technology discussed in the paper is analogous to the blockchain technology used i n Bitcoin." [ Wright 6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field 1, L20/223/5] 13. 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 secti on “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 14. Dr Wright claimed that his use of Xc opy had caused the load file metadata for this and two related documents to all have creation times at precisely the same time on 19 September 2017, with August 2008 accessed and modified times for this document and one other related one. He also claimed that he was still accessing files at BDO in 2008 and so that these may have been copied from a different drive: {Day5/102:21} and following. See Wright 11 {CSW/2/43} for an example of him claiming how Xcopy works. Appendix A to COPA’s Closing Skeleton Argument Consolidated Schedule of Dr Wright’s Forgeries Page 161 of 167 15. This explanation should be rejected as dis honest for the following reasons: a. 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. b. Mr Ma dden states that Xcopy simply does not have the effect that Dr Wright claims. This was also the view of Mr Lynch, as recorded in their Joint Report: {Q/6/4}. c. Dr Wright’s excuse about accessing files at BDO in 2008 is inconsistent with his claim that the files on the BDO Drive are a time capsule and taken from a capture of the BDO files he had in 2007. d. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004736 was manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Appendix A to COPA’s Closing Skeleton Argument Consolidated Schedule of Dr Wright’s Forgeries Page 162 of 167 PART 4: THE MYOB ONTIER EMAIL {X/56/2} “The MYOB Ontier Email” (aka “the Ramona V ersion”) 1. The email which COPA alleges is a forgery is an email document forwarded by Dr Wright’s wife (Ms Watts) as an attachment to an email to Dr Wright’s current solicitors, Shoosmiths. This document presents as an email sent by Dr Wright to Simon Cohe n of Ontier (his former solicitors) at 14.52 on 2 December 2019 purporting to show that Ontier were provided with a login to an MYOB account in 2019 (the “ MYOB Ontier Email”). 2. Dr Wright has relied on the supposed existence of supportive emails from 2019 in his cross -examination as evidence that Ontier had earlier access to MYOB than that which Ontier had stated by email of 8 February 2024 {X/55/1} (information passed on through a letter dated 9 February 2024 from Shoosmiths {M/2/1000}). He has done so in order to support his case that other MYOB records disclosed and relied on by him are not forgeries, and

Trial document files for the COPA v Wright case. The claimant is CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE (COPA). The defendant is DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (Craig Wright). ### File name: part 48 of 50 Appendix A to COPA's Closing Submissions - Consolidated Forgery Schedule.pdf ### Folder name: Closings ### File path: /content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Skeletons/Closings/Appendix A to COPA's Closing Submissions - Consolidated Forgery Schedule.pdf ### File content: in the circumstances or explain the irregularities. d. The use of a version of Windows Text Editor dating from 2020 shows these documents were not contemporaneous to the alleged time capsule. e. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_000473 was manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Appendix A to COPA’s Closing Skeleton Argument Consolidated Schedule of Dr Wright’s Forgeries Page 159 of 167 {ID_0 04736} {PTR -F/93/1} “ESDT.tex” 1. The document is a LaTeX source presented as if it was precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper created during Dr Wright’s employment at BDO. Dr Wright relies upon it as a draft addressing technical concepts which influenced his development of Bitcoin. Reasons for Allegation of Forgery 2. 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 / Lynch 1 at 12 Q/6/5]. 3. Copies of the document are also located on the Samsung Drive. These copies display signs of metadata editing and clock manipulation. [PM46 at 74- 79 H/278/17] 4. A related LaTeX file has been recovered which encodes the same textual content in a different way. That document had been deleted but was recoverable from within the Samsung Drive. The structure of that file is consistent with the file being generated automatically by software conversion tools (rather than being authored by hand). [Mad den 4 at 67 -70 H/278/16]. 5. There is a related file {ID_004735} which appears intended to create an image for the paper. The code in that file is consistent with having been generated by conversion tools such as Aspose. [Madden 3 at 75 G/5/31] 6. A related document, ESDT.pdf, was recovered from the Samsung Drive. ESDT.pdf was a compiled form of {ID_004736} but was deleted and emptied from the Recycle Bin in September 2023 [PM46 at 41- 52 H/278/10]. The metadata associated with the deleted file indicates that it was modified on 16 September 2023, but the other timestamps have been backdated to 31 October 2007. 7. The metadata of this document (when compared with metadata of other documents related to it) displays signs of metadata editing directly using specialised metadata editing tools. [Madden 3 at 52- 63 G/5/23] 8. 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. Appendix A to COPA’s Closing Skeleton Argument Consolidated Schedule of Dr Wright’s Forgeries Page 160 of 167 Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsi bility 9. 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. 10. The further effect of tampering is to lend support to Dr Wright’s new position that the Bitcoin White Paper w as created in LaTeX. That story is a recent product of Dr Wright’s change in his account. 11. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. Paragraph 13 of the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 12. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: a. 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" [ Wright 6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field 1, L20/223/4] b. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is a version of “ a paper prepared for a 360º Security Summit on 15 June 2006 concerned with “Implementing Effective Risk -Based Controls”, which Dr Wright prepared in his role at BDO. The hash chain technology discussed in the paper is analogous to the blockchain technology used i n Bitcoin." [ Wright 6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field 1, L20/223/5] 13. 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 secti on “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 14. Dr Wright claimed that his use of Xc opy had caused the load file metadata for this and two related documents to all have creation times at precisely the same time on 19 September 2017, with August 2008 accessed and modified times for this document and one other related one. He also claimed that he was still accessing files at BDO in 2008 and so that these may have been copied from a different drive: {Day5/102:21} and following. See Wright 11 {CSW/2/43} for an example of him claiming how Xcopy works. Appendix A to COPA’s Closing Skeleton Argument Consolidated Schedule of Dr Wright’s Forgeries Page 161 of 167 15. This explanation should be rejected as dis honest for the following reasons: a. 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. b. Mr Ma dden states that Xcopy simply does not have the effect that Dr Wright claims. This was also the view of Mr Lynch, as recorded in their Joint Report: {Q/6/4}. c. Dr Wright’s excuse about accessing files at BDO in 2008 is inconsistent with his claim that the files on the BDO Drive are a time capsule and taken from a capture of the BDO files he had in 2007. d. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004736 was manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Appendix A to COPA’s Closing Skeleton Argument Consolidated Schedule of Dr Wright’s Forgeries Page 162 of 167 PART 4: THE MYOB ONTIER EMAIL {X/56/2} “The MYOB Ontier Email” (aka “the Ramona V ersion”) 1. The email which COPA alleges is a forgery is an email document forwarded by Dr Wright’s wife (Ms Watts) as an attachment to an email to Dr Wright’s current solicitors, Shoosmiths. This document presents as an email sent by Dr Wright to Simon Cohe n of Ontier (his former solicitors) at 14.52 on 2 December 2019 purporting to show that Ontier were provided with a login to an MYOB account in 2019 (the “ MYOB Ontier Email”). 2. Dr Wright has relied on the supposed existence of supportive emails from 2019 in his cross -examination as evidence that Ontier had earlier access to MYOB than that which Ontier had stated by email of 8 February 2024 {X/55/1} (information passed on through a letter dated 9 February 2024 from Shoosmiths {M/2/1000}). He has done so in order to support his case that other MYOB records disclosed and relied on by him are not forgeries, and

/content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Witness Statements/Martti Malmi - Exhibits/Martti Malmi - Exhibit MM1 - SN to MM.pdf

Martti Malmi - Exhibits

part 25 of 44 Martti Malmi - Exhibit MM1 - SN to MM.pdf

> > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Satoshi Nakamoto <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: > > Here's one where I linked Berkeley DB a different way. It's worth a > try. Otherwise identical to test5. > > (Keep the datadir on the hard drive at least until you get it to > fail the same way there. That has a fair chance of success.) > > SUBJECT : Re: Forum FROM: Satoshi Nakamoto <[email protected]> TO: [email protected] DATE: 16/11/2009 19:34 [email protected] wrote: > I installed a TikiWiki on my VPS at 174.143.149.98. SSL is currently > enabled with a self-signed certificate. Admin password is the same as in > the Bitweaver. How about using this as the site platform? Maybe we can > make bitcoin.org or at least bitcoin.sf.net point there? What do you see as the benefits of switching the wiki? Some I can think of: SSL get away from sourceforge's unreliable hosting everything not logged by sourceforge The forum feature is about as weak as bitweaver. We need a full blown forum software for that. My priority right now is to get a forum going, either phpBB or similar. What do you think of the zetaboards option? Should we go ahead with that? SUBJECT : Re: Forum FROM: Satoshi Nakamoto <[email protected]> TO: [email protected] DATE: 16/11/2009 21:10 That's a good idea to go in a more web-publishing CMS type direction like Drupal. That's a better fit and can produce a better looking website than a wiki. I think I was wrong about wiki. Only a few specific people will do any website design work and those people can go ahead and have a separate login. In that case, login integration with the forum doesn't matter much. For security, I'd almost rather have a different login than be constantly checking the forum with the same login that could pwn the website. Drupal's forum is less bad than the wikis, but still a long way from something I would want to use. zetaboards pros and cons: pros: - we don't have to worry about bandwidth - they handle the backend management and security patches con: - lack of SSL - lack of privacy, everything is logged - lack of control over the php code for customization - no CAPTCHA, and if they add one later it might be unacceptable flash - ads (could pay to get rid of them later if we care enough) - there's always the risk they abruptly cancel the site for some petty reason [email protected] wrote: >> What do you see as the benefits of switching the wiki? >> Some I can think of: >> SSL >> get away from sourceforge's unreliable hosting >> everything not logged by sourceforge > > I think the biggest advantage is having a single site so you don't need > a separate account for the wiki and the forum, and the functionalities > are also nicely integrated with the main site itself. Also being ad-free > is a plus. > >> The forum feature is about as weak as bitweaver. We need a full blown >> forum software for that. > > How about Drupal's forum functionality? Address: > https://174.143.149.98/drupal/ . The CMS in general looks better and > simpler than TikiWiki. If the forum's not good enough, then we can of > course use a specialized forum software like phpBB. > >> My priority right now is to get a forum going, either phpBB or similar. >> What do you think of the zetaboards option? Should we go ahead with >> that? > > Otherwise fine, but the ads and the lack of SSL are a minus. > SUBJECT : linux-0.1.6-test7 FROM: Satoshi Nakamoto <[email protected]> TO: Liberty Standard <[email protected]> CC: Martti Malmi <[email protected]> DATE: 17/11/2009 03:41 test 7: Backup your data directory before running this, just in case. Workaround for the Db::open/Db::close "Bad file descriptor" exception. Might also make the initial block download faster. The workaround is to open the database handles and keep them open for the duration of the program, which is actually the more common thing to do anyway. If we're not closing and opening all the time, the error shouldn't get a chance to happen. The one exception is wallet.dat, which I still close after writing is finished so I can flush the transaction logs into the dat file, making the dat file standalone. That way if someone does a backup while Bitcoin is running, they'll get a wallet.dat that is valid by itself without the database transaction logs. This is a restructuring of the database handling, so we might find some new deadlocks. Usually if it deadlocks, either the UI will stop repainting, or it'll stop using CPU even though it still says Generating. SUBJECT : Re: Forum FROM: Satoshi Nakamoto <[email protected]> TO: [email protected] DATE: 17/11/2009 16:57 [email protected] wrote: > How about Drupal's forum functionality? Address: > https://174.143.149.98/drupal/ . The CMS in general looks better and > simpler than TikiWiki. If the forum's not good enough, then we can of > course use a specialized forum software like phpBB. Another issue I thought of with zetaboards: most free forum sites won't let you export the user account database if you want to move. I don't know why I don't see any other software projects using a free forum, but I have to assume there might be a reason we would discover later. If you can install phpBB3 on your VPS, that's probably the better option. From what I've seen on other forums, if the cost of bandwidth becomes an issue, a small Google Adwords (text links) at the top generates more than the cost of bandwidth even for very low value traffic like gaming. This would be much higher value traffic well targeted for high paying gold merchant keywords and VPN hosts. It could eventually be a valuable revenue stream you wouldn't want to give away to some free site. I want to pre-announce some of the features in version 0.2 on the forum and try to

Trial document files for the COPA v Wright case. The claimant is CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE (COPA). The defendant is DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (Craig Wright). ### File name: part 25 of 44 Martti Malmi - Exhibit MM1 - SN to MM.pdf ### Folder name: Martti Malmi - Exhibits ### File path: /content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Witness Statements/Martti Malmi - Exhibits/Martti Malmi - Exhibit MM1 - SN to MM.pdf ### File content: > > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Satoshi Nakamoto <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: > > Here's one where I linked Berkeley DB a different way. It's worth a > try. Otherwise identical to test5. > > (Keep the datadir on the hard drive at least until you get it to > fail the same way there. That has a fair chance of success.) > > SUBJECT : Re: Forum FROM: Satoshi Nakamoto <[email protected]> TO: [email protected] DATE: 16/11/2009 19:34 [email protected] wrote: > I installed a TikiWiki on my VPS at 174.143.149.98. SSL is currently > enabled with a self-signed certificate. Admin password is the same as in > the Bitweaver. How about using this as the site platform? Maybe we can > make bitcoin.org or at least bitcoin.sf.net point there? What do you see as the benefits of switching the wiki? Some I can think of: SSL get away from sourceforge's unreliable hosting everything not logged by sourceforge The forum feature is about as weak as bitweaver. We need a full blown forum software for that. My priority right now is to get a forum going, either phpBB or similar. What do you think of the zetaboards option? Should we go ahead with that? SUBJECT : Re: Forum FROM: Satoshi Nakamoto <[email protected]> TO: [email protected] DATE: 16/11/2009 21:10 That's a good idea to go in a more web-publishing CMS type direction like Drupal. That's a better fit and can produce a better looking website than a wiki. I think I was wrong about wiki. Only a few specific people will do any website design work and those people can go ahead and have a separate login. In that case, login integration with the forum doesn't matter much. For security, I'd almost rather have a different login than be constantly checking the forum with the same login that could pwn the website. Drupal's forum is less bad than the wikis, but still a long way from something I would want to use. zetaboards pros and cons: pros: - we don't have to worry about bandwidth - they handle the backend management and security patches con: - lack of SSL - lack of privacy, everything is logged - lack of control over the php code for customization - no CAPTCHA, and if they add one later it might be unacceptable flash - ads (could pay to get rid of them later if we care enough) - there's always the risk they abruptly cancel the site for some petty reason [email protected] wrote: >> What do you see as the benefits of switching the wiki? >> Some I can think of: >> SSL >> get away from sourceforge's unreliable hosting >> everything not logged by sourceforge > > I think the biggest advantage is having a single site so you don't need > a separate account for the wiki and the forum, and the functionalities > are also nicely integrated with the main site itself. Also being ad-free > is a plus. > >> The forum feature is about as weak as bitweaver. We need a full blown >> forum software for that. > > How about Drupal's forum functionality? Address: > https://174.143.149.98/drupal/ . The CMS in general looks better and > simpler than TikiWiki. If the forum's not good enough, then we can of > course use a specialized forum software like phpBB. > >> My priority right now is to get a forum going, either phpBB or similar. >> What do you think of the zetaboards option? Should we go ahead with >> that? > > Otherwise fine, but the ads and the lack of SSL are a minus. > SUBJECT : linux-0.1.6-test7 FROM: Satoshi Nakamoto <[email protected]> TO: Liberty Standard <[email protected]> CC: Martti Malmi <[email protected]> DATE: 17/11/2009 03:41 test 7: Backup your data directory before running this, just in case. Workaround for the Db::open/Db::close "Bad file descriptor" exception. Might also make the initial block download faster. The workaround is to open the database handles and keep them open for the duration of the program, which is actually the more common thing to do anyway. If we're not closing and opening all the time, the error shouldn't get a chance to happen. The one exception is wallet.dat, which I still close after writing is finished so I can flush the transaction logs into the dat file, making the dat file standalone. That way if someone does a backup while Bitcoin is running, they'll get a wallet.dat that is valid by itself without the database transaction logs. This is a restructuring of the database handling, so we might find some new deadlocks. Usually if it deadlocks, either the UI will stop repainting, or it'll stop using CPU even though it still says Generating. SUBJECT : Re: Forum FROM: Satoshi Nakamoto <[email protected]> TO: [email protected] DATE: 17/11/2009 16:57 [email protected] wrote: > How about Drupal's forum functionality? Address: > https://174.143.149.98/drupal/ . The CMS in general looks better and > simpler than TikiWiki. If the forum's not good enough, then we can of > course use a specialized forum software like phpBB. Another issue I thought of with zetaboards: most free forum sites won't let you export the user account database if you want to move. I don't know why I don't see any other software projects using a free forum, but I have to assume there might be a reason we would discover later. If you can install phpBB3 on your VPS, that's probably the better option. From what I've seen on other forums, if the cost of bandwidth becomes an issue, a small Google Adwords (text links) at the top generates more than the cost of bandwidth even for very low value traffic like gaming. This would be much higher value traffic well targeted for high paying gold merchant keywords and VPN hosts. It could eventually be a valuable revenue stream you wouldn't want to give away to some free site. I want to pre-announce some of the features in version 0.2 on the forum and try to

/content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Expert Reports/Patrick Madden/Appendix PM21.pdf

Patrick Madden

part 14 of 15 Appendix PM21.pdf

explain the conclusion above and illustrate what is meant by “spoofing” in moredetail, I have recreated a spoofing process first using MS Outlook, and second using a well - known email spoofing website called Emk ei.cz. 81. Before proceeding, I point out that I have conducted these tests using different infrastructureto that available to the authors of ID_001546 and ID_002586 and therefore my results can be expected to differ. These results do not inform my conclusions above , but illustrate them. Spoofing with MS Outlook 82. Starting with MS Outlook I started a new draft email message. As I maintain multiple email addresses for Right Click Forensic, the option to select the “From” account is already available to me as per the screenshot below on the left. If this option is not available, it can be made available by clicking on “Options” and “From” as per the screenshot on the right:23 - 23 - H/104/23{ID_001546} {ID_002586} {ID_001546} {ID_002586} Madden Appendix PM 21 Satoshi Nakamoto messages /ID_001199, ID_001546, and ID_002586 Page 24 of 27 83. T he next step is to add an address by clicking on “Other Email Address” and entering the email address as per the screen below: 84.T he email address can then be selected as the “From” email address, and an email can be composed and sent . 85.Wh ile creating the email, the user can select to have the Reply -To: option enabled by pressi ng t he button “Direct Replies to” and configuring the email accordingly to “have replies sent to ” a ny email address of the user’s choosing : Madden Appendix PM 21 Satoshi Nakamoto messages /ID_001199, ID_001546, and ID_002586 Page 24 of 27 83. T he next step is to add an address by clicking on “Other Email Address” and entering the email address as per the screen below: 84.T he email address can then be selected as the “From” email address, and an email can be composed and sent . 85.Wh ile creating the email, the user can select to have the Reply -To: option enabled by pressi ng t he button “Direct Replies to” and configuring the email accordingly to “have replies sent to ” a ny email address of the user’s choosing : 24 - 24 - H/104/24 M adden Appendix PM 21 Satoshi Nakamoto messages /ID_001199, ID_001546, and ID_002586 Page 25of 27 86. The result of conducing these steps would depend on how the server was configured: a. If a server was configured to prevent spoofing, such as on a modern MS Office 365 account, it would by defaul t cause a message to be sent “from [email protected] On Behalf Of testthis@visto m ail”. Since my email server is configured to control spoofing, that was the effect of sending my test email above; or b. If a server was not configured to prevent spoofing (or if a private email server was being used that was configurable), the email would send with the sender set to “[email protected] ”. 87. Looking at the Transmission header that was assigned in this way, a Message -ID was assigned that is characteristic of the use of MS Outlook. Message-IDs vary by the software that is in use, and the equivalent Message -IDs from ID_001546 and ID_002586 below demonstrate that ID_001546 was similar to the format typical of MS Outlook while ID _002586 was not : Test message Message -ID: <[email protected]> ID_001546 Message -ID: <[email protected]> ID_002586 Message -ID: <55728785.3f14KPaNyWUfyqzr%[email protected]> 88. I point out that the Message -ID of all three messages, including my test message, names the ID as “@vistomail.com”. The structure of that ID is determined from the From field and is not indicative of the use of Vistomail servers. Spoofing from online tool 89. It is also possible to spoof emails with the use of free online tool s. One such tool which is well known to forensic investigators and familiar to me is the website E mkei.cz, which is titled “Emke i’s Fake Mailer”. This website can simply be visited in a b rowser window and an email message filled out and sent , without validation or payment: M adden Appendix PM 21 Satoshi Nakamoto messages /ID_001199, ID_001546, and ID_002586 Page 25of 27 86. The result of conducing these steps would depend on how the server was configured: a. If a server was configured to prevent spoofing, such as on a modern MS Office 365 account, it would by defaul t cause a message to be sent “from [email protected] On Behalf Of testthis@visto m ail”. Since my email server is configured to control spoofing, that was the effect of sending my test email above; or b. If a server was not configured to prevent spoofing (or if a private email server was being used that was configurable), the email would send with the sender set to “[email protected] ”. 87. Looking at the Transmission header that was assigned in this way, a Message -ID was assigned that is characteristic of the use of MS Outlook.

Trial document files for the COPA v Wright case. The claimant is CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE (COPA). The defendant is DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (Craig Wright). ### File name: part 14 of 15 Appendix PM21.pdf ### Folder name: Patrick Madden ### File path: /content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Expert Reports/Patrick Madden/Appendix PM21.pdf ### File content: explain the conclusion above and illustrate what is meant by “spoofing” in moredetail, I have recreated a spoofing process first using MS Outlook, and second using a well - known email spoofing website called Emk ei.cz. 81. Before proceeding, I point out that I have conducted these tests using different infrastructureto that available to the authors of ID_001546 and ID_002586 and therefore my results can be expected to differ. These results do not inform my conclusions above , but illustrate them. Spoofing with MS Outlook 82. Starting with MS Outlook I started a new draft email message. As I maintain multiple email addresses for Right Click Forensic, the option to select the “From” account is already available to me as per the screenshot below on the left. If this option is not available, it can be made available by clicking on “Options” and “From” as per the screenshot on the right:23 - 23 - H/104/23{ID_001546} {ID_002586} {ID_001546} {ID_002586} Madden Appendix PM 21 Satoshi Nakamoto messages /ID_001199, ID_001546, and ID_002586 Page 24 of 27 83. T he next step is to add an address by clicking on “Other Email Address” and entering the email address as per the screen below: 84.T he email address can then be selected as the “From” email address, and an email can be composed and sent . 85.Wh ile creating the email, the user can select to have the Reply -To: option enabled by pressi ng t he button “Direct Replies to” and configuring the email accordingly to “have replies sent to ” a ny email address of the user’s choosing : Madden Appendix PM 21 Satoshi Nakamoto messages /ID_001199, ID_001546, and ID_002586 Page 24 of 27 83. T he next step is to add an address by clicking on “Other Email Address” and entering the email address as per the screen below: 84.T he email address can then be selected as the “From” email address, and an email can be composed and sent . 85.Wh ile creating the email, the user can select to have the Reply -To: option enabled by pressi ng t he button “Direct Replies to” and configuring the email accordingly to “have replies sent to ” a ny email address of the user’s choosing : 24 - 24 - H/104/24 M adden Appendix PM 21 Satoshi Nakamoto messages /ID_001199, ID_001546, and ID_002586 Page 25of 27 86. The result of conducing these steps would depend on how the server was configured: a. If a server was configured to prevent spoofing, such as on a modern MS Office 365 account, it would by defaul t cause a message to be sent “from [email protected] On Behalf Of testthis@visto m ail”. Since my email server is configured to control spoofing, that was the effect of sending my test email above; or b. If a server was not configured to prevent spoofing (or if a private email server was being used that was configurable), the email would send with the sender set to “[email protected] ”. 87. Looking at the Transmission header that was assigned in this way, a Message -ID was assigned that is characteristic of the use of MS Outlook. Message-IDs vary by the software that is in use, and the equivalent Message -IDs from ID_001546 and ID_002586 below demonstrate that ID_001546 was similar to the format typical of MS Outlook while ID _002586 was not : Test message Message -ID: <[email protected]> ID_001546 Message -ID: <[email protected]> ID_002586 Message -ID: <55728785.3f14KPaNyWUfyqzr%[email protected]> 88. I point out that the Message -ID of all three messages, including my test message, names the ID as “@vistomail.com”. The structure of that ID is determined from the From field and is not indicative of the use of Vistomail servers. Spoofing from online tool 89. It is also possible to spoof emails with the use of free online tool s. One such tool which is well known to forensic investigators and familiar to me is the website E mkei.cz, which is titled “Emke i’s Fake Mailer”. This website can simply be visited in a b rowser window and an email message filled out and sent , without validation or payment: M adden Appendix PM 21 Satoshi Nakamoto messages /ID_001199, ID_001546, and ID_002586 Page 25of 27 86. The result of conducing these steps would depend on how the server was configured: a. If a server was configured to prevent spoofing, such as on a modern MS Office 365 account, it would by defaul t cause a message to be sent “from [email protected] On Behalf Of testthis@visto m ail”. Since my email server is configured to control spoofing, that was the effect of sending my test email above; or b. If a server was not configured to prevent spoofing (or if a private email server was being used that was configurable), the email would send with the sender set to “[email protected] ”. 87. Looking at the Transmission header that was assigned in this way, a Message -ID was assigned that is characteristic of the use of MS Outlook.

/content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Expert Reports/Arthur Rosendahl/First Expert Report of Arthur Rosendahl.pdf

Arthur Rosendahl

part 7 of 40 First Expert Report of Arthur Rosendahl.pdf

the choice of fonts. The main text is in Times New Roman, which is indeed used very often in scientific articles; alongside with the L ATEX default, Computer Modern Roman; but the white paper’s title and section headings are in a different font, Century Schoolbook. It is uncommon in L ATEX to use different fonts for the text body and the headings. Also, the code extracts on pages 7 and 8 are in Courier, 10 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1FBDC1CB-92F0-425F-93DA-C34DE293EA68 Figure 2.1: Example of overstretched word space in the BWP a. Throughout, the apostrophe is straight (') instead of curly (’). Fonts are generally set up in L ATEX to use the curly apostrophe, even when a straight quote is input in the source code; b. In the BWP section numbers are followed by a full stop, whereas in the L ATEX default they are not; c. The formula at the bottom of page 4 of the BWP uses the character ‘*’ for mul- tiplication instead of . A L ATEX user would likely have used “maths mode” to achieve something looking like: 80bytes624365 = 4:21 MB; d. In the enumeration at the beginning of section 5 of the BWP, the numbers are followed by a closing parenthesis as in: “1) New transactions are broadcast to all nodes”, whereas the L ATEX default is no parenthesis; e. Although the text is justified-aligned (flush straight at both the left and right margins), there is no hyphenation (word division across line breaks). As a result of not using hyphenation, the inter-word space in the BWP is stretched a lot in some places, as in figure 2.1, that appears in the middle of page 3 of the BWP. LATEX is set up by default to allow some (but not too many) words to break across lines, resulting in more even spacing. Hyphenation is an important part of how LATEX achieves good typesetting in documents that are justified-aligned, without stretching the inter-word spacing. It is possible to deactivate hyphenation but the result is generally considered inferior, as most users who follow that route find out; f. The formulae are not centred, whereas in L ATEX they are; and g. The formulae also look a bit awkward in places, as for example with the uneven spacing around the fraction bar in (q/p)zat the bottom of page 6 of the BWP, as well as in two places in the middle of page 7. See figure 2.2 for a comparison the white paper with L ATEX. Choice of Fonts 31. I also need to remark upon the choice of fonts. The main text is in Times New Roman, which is indeed used very often in scientific articles; alongside with the L ATEX default, Computer Modern Roman; but the white paper’s title and section headings are in a different font, Century Schoolbook. It is uncommon in L ATEX to use different fonts for the text body and the headings. Also, the code extracts on pages 7 and 8 are in Courier, 10 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1FBDC1CB-92F0-425F-93DA-C34DE293EA6810 - 10 - G/7/10 qz=1ifpq (q/p)zifp > q Figure 2.2: First formula of the Bitcoin white paper, and its rendering in L ATEX a very thin typeface that doesn’t render very well. I would have expected the default LATEX monospaced font here, Computer Modern Typewriter. The Courier font, while a default font for Windows, is not a default font for L ATEX and would have required a greater degree of effort to use, while Computer Modern Typewriter could be used simply with the core L ATEX command \\texttt. 32. There is of course no accounting for taste (and this was only the starting point of my re- view), but the overall impression I gained was that, if the document had been produced with LATEX, there has been great attention to details in some areas, and apparent care- lessness in others: many of L ATEX’s default settings would have to have been changed, not necessarily for the better, in ways that would have taken effort to achieve. I already commented on spacing above, and can also point to the mathematical formulae. Re- gardless of which fonts one likes best, I think most people would agree that the second example in figure 2.2, made in L ATEX with standard settings, look at least a little better than the first one and is certainly at least as good. Changing the default settings to achieve the exact spacing observed in the formula on top seems practically infeasible to me; if it could be done, it would most likely have to be done at the lower level, in T EX instead of L ATEX, and take substantial extra time. It may be possible, using specific commands, to input additional spaces manually to achieve a similar spacing, but that would not be guaranteed to have the same result, and it would still be necessary to typeset the symbols differently. Format of embedded fonts 33. I also made some observations about the format (i.e. the filetype) of the font files embedded within the PDF file. When a PDF is output, it is common for copies of its required fonts to be embedded within the structure of the document: this enables the PDF to be displayed on a range of systems, without making assumptions about which fonts are installed locally. The program “pdffonts”1gives a summary of what fonts are present in a PDF file. For the original Bitcoin White Paper, its output is shown in table 1See https://www.xpdfreader.com/pdffonts-man.html 11 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1FBDC1CB-92F0-425F-93DA-C34DE293EA68 qz=1ifpq (q/p)zifp > q Figure 2.2: First formula of the Bitcoin white paper, and its rendering in L ATEX a very thin typeface that doesn’t render very well. I would have expected the default LATEX monospaced font here, Computer Modern Typewriter. The Courier font, while a default font for Windows, is not a default font for L ATEX and would have required a greater degree of effort to use, while Computer Modern Typewriter could be used simply with the core L ATEX command \\texttt. 32. There is of course no accounting for taste (and this was only the starting point of my re- view), but the overall impression I gained was that, if the document had been produced with LATEX, there has been great attention to details in some areas, and apparent care- lessness in others: many of L ATEX’s default settings would have to have been changed, not necessarily for the better, in ways that would have taken effort to achieve. I already commented on spacing above, and can also point to the mathematical formulae. Re- gardless of which fonts one likes best, I think most people would agree that the second example in figure 2.2, made in L ATEX with standard settings, look at least

Trial document files for the COPA v Wright case. The claimant is CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE (COPA). The defendant is DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (Craig Wright). ### File name: part 7 of 40 First Expert Report of Arthur Rosendahl.pdf ### Folder name: Arthur Rosendahl ### File path: /content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Expert Reports/Arthur Rosendahl/First Expert Report of Arthur Rosendahl.pdf ### File content: the choice of fonts. The main text is in Times New Roman, which is indeed used very often in scientific articles; alongside with the L ATEX default, Computer Modern Roman; but the white paper’s title and section headings are in a different font, Century Schoolbook. It is uncommon in L ATEX to use different fonts for the text body and the headings. Also, the code extracts on pages 7 and 8 are in Courier, 10 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1FBDC1CB-92F0-425F-93DA-C34DE293EA68 Figure 2.1: Example of overstretched word space in the BWP a. Throughout, the apostrophe is straight (') instead of curly (’). Fonts are generally set up in L ATEX to use the curly apostrophe, even when a straight quote is input in the source code; b. In the BWP section numbers are followed by a full stop, whereas in the L ATEX default they are not; c. The formula at the bottom of page 4 of the BWP uses the character ‘*’ for mul- tiplication instead of . A L ATEX user would likely have used “maths mode” to achieve something looking like: 80bytes624365 = 4:21 MB; d. In the enumeration at the beginning of section 5 of the BWP, the numbers are followed by a closing parenthesis as in: “1) New transactions are broadcast to all nodes”, whereas the L ATEX default is no parenthesis; e. Although the text is justified-aligned (flush straight at both the left and right margins), there is no hyphenation (word division across line breaks). As a result of not using hyphenation, the inter-word space in the BWP is stretched a lot in some places, as in figure 2.1, that appears in the middle of page 3 of the BWP. LATEX is set up by default to allow some (but not too many) words to break across lines, resulting in more even spacing. Hyphenation is an important part of how LATEX achieves good typesetting in documents that are justified-aligned, without stretching the inter-word spacing. It is possible to deactivate hyphenation but the result is generally considered inferior, as most users who follow that route find out; f. The formulae are not centred, whereas in L ATEX they are; and g. The formulae also look a bit awkward in places, as for example with the uneven spacing around the fraction bar in (q/p)zat the bottom of page 6 of the BWP, as well as in two places in the middle of page 7. See figure 2.2 for a comparison the white paper with L ATEX. Choice of Fonts 31. I also need to remark upon the choice of fonts. The main text is in Times New Roman, which is indeed used very often in scientific articles; alongside with the L ATEX default, Computer Modern Roman; but the white paper’s title and section headings are in a different font, Century Schoolbook. It is uncommon in L ATEX to use different fonts for the text body and the headings. Also, the code extracts on pages 7 and 8 are in Courier, 10 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1FBDC1CB-92F0-425F-93DA-C34DE293EA6810 - 10 - G/7/10 qz=1ifpq (q/p)zifp > q Figure 2.2: First formula of the Bitcoin white paper, and its rendering in L ATEX a very thin typeface that doesn’t render very well. I would have expected the default LATEX monospaced font here, Computer Modern Typewriter. The Courier font, while a default font for Windows, is not a default font for L ATEX and would have required a greater degree of effort to use, while Computer Modern Typewriter could be used simply with the core L ATEX command \\texttt. 32. There is of course no accounting for taste (and this was only the starting point of my re- view), but the overall impression I gained was that, if the document had been produced with LATEX, there has been great attention to details in some areas, and apparent care- lessness in others: many of L ATEX’s default settings would have to have been changed, not necessarily for the better, in ways that would have taken effort to achieve. I already commented on spacing above, and can also point to the mathematical formulae. Re- gardless of which fonts one likes best, I think most people would agree that the second example in figure 2.2, made in L ATEX with standard settings, look at least a little better than the first one and is certainly at least as good. Changing the default settings to achieve the exact spacing observed in the formula on top seems practically infeasible to me; if it could be done, it would most likely have to be done at the lower level, in T EX instead of L ATEX, and take substantial extra time. It may be possible, using specific commands, to input additional spaces manually to achieve a similar spacing, but that would not be guaranteed to have the same result, and it would still be necessary to typeset the symbols differently. Format of embedded fonts 33. I also made some observations about the format (i.e. the filetype) of the font files embedded within the PDF file. When a PDF is output, it is common for copies of its required fonts to be embedded within the structure of the document: this enables the PDF to be displayed on a range of systems, without making assumptions about which fonts are installed locally. The program “pdffonts”1gives a summary of what fonts are present in a PDF file. For the original Bitcoin White Paper, its output is shown in table 1See https://www.xpdfreader.com/pdffonts-man.html 11 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1FBDC1CB-92F0-425F-93DA-C34DE293EA68 qz=1ifpq (q/p)zifp > q Figure 2.2: First formula of the Bitcoin white paper, and its rendering in L ATEX a very thin typeface that doesn’t render very well. I would have expected the default LATEX monospaced font here, Computer Modern Typewriter. The Courier font, while a default font for Windows, is not a default font for L ATEX and would have required a greater degree of effort to use, while Computer Modern Typewriter could be used simply with the core L ATEX command \\texttt. 32. There is of course no accounting for taste (and this was only the starting point of my re- view), but the overall impression I gained was that, if the document had been produced with LATEX, there has been great attention to details in some areas, and apparent care- lessness in others: many of L ATEX’s default settings would have to have been changed, not necessarily for the better, in ways that would have taken effort to achieve. I already commented on spacing above, and can also point to the mathematical formulae. Re- gardless of which fonts one likes best, I think most people would agree that the second example in figure 2.2, made in L ATEX with standard settings, look at least

/content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Expert Reports/Patrick Madden/Appendix PM11.pdf

Patrick Madden

part 1 of 8 Appendix PM11.pdf

Madden Appendix PM11 “LOG FILES” / ID_000746, ID_000748, ID_000753, ID_000754, ID_000840, ID_000848 Page 1 of 22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD) Claim No: IL -2021 -000019 BETWEEN: CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE Claimant -and- DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT Defendant Appendix PM11 LOG FILES ID_000746, ID_000748, ID_000753, ID_000754, ID_000840, ID_000848 1.Th is Appendix addresses the six files in the disclosure dataset which are saved with the extension “.log” : ID_000746 ID_000748 ID_000753 ID_000754 ID_000840 ID_000848 Report structure – related appendix PM12 2. As I explained in my Main Report, I had not initially flagged these files for review, on the basis that they are encoded as simple plain text files which do not typically provide any useful basis for forensic examination. Towards the end of my analysis however , Bird & Bird asked me to look at executable files in the disclosure dataset from a perspective of examining them as any other disclosure document for any information contained within them, and this also led me to identify a potentially relevantexecutable in the form “bitcoin.exe” and to analyse certain plain text ‘log’ files that appeared to be related to “bitcoin.exe”. 3. I have therefore reported on the analysis of log files in this Appendix, and my analysis of the executable is in Appendix PM12. 4. Although these two are very closely related in context, it was helpful to split the review into two documents because the technical approach to the two documents was very different.{ID_000746} {ID_000748} {ID_000753} {ID_000754} {ID_000840} {ID_000848} {H/66} {G/1} {H/66} Madden Appendix PM11 “LOG FILES” / ID_000746, ID_000748, ID_000753, ID_000754, ID_000840, ID_000848 Page 2 of 22 Log files generally 5. The extension “.log” is not indicative of a file format in itself, but is an extension commonly but informally used to save software operation logs. These logs are often, but may not always be, in plain text. The .log files in this disclosure dataset are plain text files. 6. Although “ LOG” is not a standardised file format, that does not matter for the purpose of this analysis as long as it is understood that it is encoded as plain text, and I refer to it in the same way as any other file format here. Limitations of review 7. Being a plain text document, there is relatively little footprint for forensic analysis. I have set out my primary conclusions below in relation to some metadata irregularities in four of the six .log files which contain content which is firmly within my expertise . I have also provided some secondary observations, keeping within my area of expertise. However, these secondary observations are not firm conclusions, in particular where they concern how the log might have interacted with the software that created it. I emphasise that I am not a software developer, and my experience in software coding is only minimal. While I am able to inspect these logs from the perspective offorensic document examination, the interpretation of software logs themselves is not within m y area of expertise, and it should be borne in mind that my secondary observations are subject to these limitations . 8.The provided metadata associated with the six .LOG files listed above is as follows: Metadata field ID_000746 ID_000748 ID_000753 ID_000754 ID_000840 ID_000848 Provided external metadata (OS/file property information) File Name db.log db.log debug.log debug.log debug.log debug.log OS Created -Date and Time 04/01/2009 13:09 04/01/2009 13:09 04/01/2009 13:25 04/01/2009 13:25 09/01/2009 20:27 19/11/2015 16:41 OS Last 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 09/01/2009 10/01/2009 {ID_000746} {ID_000748} {ID_000753} {ID_000754} {ID_000840} {ID_000848} Madden Appendix PM11 “LOG FILES” / ID_000746, ID_000748, ID_000753, ID_000754, ID_000840, ID_000848 Page 3 of 22 Modified - Date and Time 13:09 13:09 13:25 13:25 20:27 07:38 OS Last Accessed - Date and Time 04/01/2009 13:09 04/01/2009 13:09 04/01/2009 13:25 04/01/2009 13:25 09/01/2009 20:27 10/01/2009 07:38 Additional properties external metadata File Capacity 0 Bytes 0 Bytes 1,040 Bytes 1,040 Bytes 15,353 Bytes 15,349 Bytes Ov erview of content of the LOG files 9.Of th e six LOG files in the disclosure dataset: a.The first two, ID_000746 and ID_000748, are empty files with 0 bytes of content. I do notanalyse these further below. b.The second two, ID_000753, and ID_000754, are very short documents which are electronic duplicates (by MD5 hash). My analysis of ID_000753 below applies equally to ID_000754. c.The third two, ID_000840 and ID_000848, are very similar to each other but present specific difference s between them which I address below. 10. T he documents present as software logs. T he shortest are the identical files ID_000753 and ID_000754, which present as follows ( with some long passages of white space removed): sending: version (46 bytes) RandAddSeed() got

Trial document files for the COPA v Wright case. The claimant is CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE (COPA). The defendant is DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (Craig Wright). ### File name: part 1 of 8 Appendix PM11.pdf ### Folder name: Patrick Madden ### File path: /content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Expert Reports/Patrick Madden/Appendix PM11.pdf ### File content: Madden Appendix PM11 “LOG FILES” / ID_000746, ID_000748, ID_000753, ID_000754, ID_000840, ID_000848 Page 1 of 22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD) Claim No: IL -2021 -000019 BETWEEN: CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE Claimant -and- DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT Defendant Appendix PM11 LOG FILES ID_000746, ID_000748, ID_000753, ID_000754, ID_000840, ID_000848 1.Th is Appendix addresses the six files in the disclosure dataset which are saved with the extension “.log” : ID_000746 ID_000748 ID_000753 ID_000754 ID_000840 ID_000848 Report structure – related appendix PM12 2. As I explained in my Main Report, I had not initially flagged these files for review, on the basis that they are encoded as simple plain text files which do not typically provide any useful basis for forensic examination. Towards the end of my analysis however , Bird & Bird asked me to look at executable files in the disclosure dataset from a perspective of examining them as any other disclosure document for any information contained within them, and this also led me to identify a potentially relevantexecutable in the form “bitcoin.exe” and to analyse certain plain text ‘log’ files that appeared to be related to “bitcoin.exe”. 3. I have therefore reported on the analysis of log files in this Appendix, and my analysis of the executable is in Appendix PM12. 4. Although these two are very closely related in context, it was helpful to split the review into two documents because the technical approach to the two documents was very different.{ID_000746} {ID_000748} {ID_000753} {ID_000754} {ID_000840} {ID_000848} {H/66} {G/1} {H/66} Madden Appendix PM11 “LOG FILES” / ID_000746, ID_000748, ID_000753, ID_000754, ID_000840, ID_000848 Page 2 of 22 Log files generally 5. The extension “.log” is not indicative of a file format in itself, but is an extension commonly but informally used to save software operation logs. These logs are often, but may not always be, in plain text. The .log files in this disclosure dataset are plain text files. 6. Although “ LOG” is not a standardised file format, that does not matter for the purpose of this analysis as long as it is understood that it is encoded as plain text, and I refer to it in the same way as any other file format here. Limitations of review 7. Being a plain text document, there is relatively little footprint for forensic analysis. I have set out my primary conclusions below in relation to some metadata irregularities in four of the six .log files which contain content which is firmly within my expertise . I have also provided some secondary observations, keeping within my area of expertise. However, these secondary observations are not firm conclusions, in particular where they concern how the log might have interacted with the software that created it. I emphasise that I am not a software developer, and my experience in software coding is only minimal. While I am able to inspect these logs from the perspective offorensic document examination, the interpretation of software logs themselves is not within m y area of expertise, and it should be borne in mind that my secondary observations are subject to these limitations . 8.The provided metadata associated with the six .LOG files listed above is as follows: Metadata field ID_000746 ID_000748 ID_000753 ID_000754 ID_000840 ID_000848 Provided external metadata (OS/file property information) File Name db.log db.log debug.log debug.log debug.log debug.log OS Created -Date and Time 04/01/2009 13:09 04/01/2009 13:09 04/01/2009 13:25 04/01/2009 13:25 09/01/2009 20:27 19/11/2015 16:41 OS Last 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 09/01/2009 10/01/2009 {ID_000746} {ID_000748} {ID_000753} {ID_000754} {ID_000840} {ID_000848} Madden Appendix PM11 “LOG FILES” / ID_000746, ID_000748, ID_000753, ID_000754, ID_000840, ID_000848 Page 3 of 22 Modified - Date and Time 13:09 13:09 13:25 13:25 20:27 07:38 OS Last Accessed - Date and Time 04/01/2009 13:09 04/01/2009 13:09 04/01/2009 13:25 04/01/2009 13:25 09/01/2009 20:27 10/01/2009 07:38 Additional properties external metadata File Capacity 0 Bytes 0 Bytes 1,040 Bytes 1,040 Bytes 15,353 Bytes 15,349 Bytes Ov erview of content of the LOG files 9.Of th e six LOG files in the disclosure dataset: a.The first two, ID_000746 and ID_000748, are empty files with 0 bytes of content. I do notanalyse these further below. b.The second two, ID_000753, and ID_000754, are very short documents which are electronic duplicates (by MD5 hash). My analysis of ID_000753 below applies equally to ID_000754. c.The third two, ID_000840 and ID_000848, are very similar to each other but present specific difference s between them which I address below. 10. T he documents present as software logs. T he shortest are the identical files ID_000753 and ID_000754, which present as follows ( with some long passages of white space removed): sending: version (46 bytes) RandAddSeed() got

/content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Skeletons/Closings/Appendix B to COPA's Closing Submissions - Schedule of Transcript References.pdf

Closings

part 23 of 220 Appendix B to COPA's Closing Submissions - Schedule of Transcript References.pdf

Q. You had every opportunity in that part of the chain of custody schedule to provide further information if you wanted to, didn't you? A. Yes , I did. Dr Wright admits he had an opportunity to set out in his Chain of Custody the fact that documents were different in some way, but did not take it. {CSW/2/71} CSW 11 Appendix B {Day3/122:18} - {Day3/123:6} Q. What you’re saying is that in order to provide documents for, first of all, the Kleiman litigation and then for these proceedings, you laboriously took entries from a live version of MYOB and entered them in one by one into a non -live version of MYOB and then produced some versions of that? A. No, in multiple ways. Firstly, these were never used in this proceedings. The reason you’re saying your needle in a haystack is that you had people go through every single email I have ever sent and looked for them. That was then part of the litig ation in that case. Next, the log- in for the live version of MYOB was provided to Ontier and AlixPartners in 2019. 2019 precedes this. Dr Wright evades the question about the creation of the MYOB records, providing a confusing reply. {Day3/123:14} - {Day3/124:2} Q. But Dr Wright, what you didn’t explain there was that your part in all of this, in creating these documents, by putting in these entries in March 2020, that wasn’t apparent from the chain of custody, was it? A. No, because I didn’t do that. Your error is you keep missing the fact that I said I had to create another document. My Lord, the litigation in the US didn’t involve Tulip Trading. If I was to bring that in, it would add extra opportunity for Mr Kleiman to seek money from me. So, what I did was separate it. I requested an offline copy so that I could make it so that no online copy of anything from Tulip Trading would go into the American case. Dr Wright claims the MYOB screenshots had to be created new for Kleiman. Dr Wright has provided no evidence that this assertion is correct. Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 58 REFERENCE QUOTE COMMENT {Day3/124:19} - {Day3/125:10} Q. Do you say that none of those screenshots that we looked at, 4077, 4078, 4079 or 4090, has anything to do with this case? A. I’m saying that the screenshots taken by Ontier had nothing to do with that file. That file was never given to Ontier, so therefore Ontier could not have, at any point, got screenshots from the file. Q. Well, you said a moment ago that none of these documents had anything to do with this case. That's what you said. A. No, as in the QIF -- sorry, the QIF, the MYOB and the email. Sorry, I'm not specific. Q. The documents that we looked at earlier, 4077, 4078, 4079, that I put on screen, are they documents you say have nothing to do with this case? A. They are documents related to this case that have nothing to do with the other MYOB file. Dr Wright gives muddled answers to evade answering the question. {Day3/125:11} - {Day3/126:6} Q. I'm sorry, Dr Wright, do you say that those documents have relevance to this case and are probative of anything in this case? A. As I just said, they're documents related to this case -- I'll emphasise that again. The screenshots taken by Ontier, when they downloaded, themselves, the online version of this document that has nothin g to do with the one gave in to the American court case, are directly related to this case. The ones that I created in response to Magistrate Reinhart and an order to do so, they, on the other hand, have nothing to do with this case. Q. The documents you s ay that do have something to do with this case, were created by you -- as a result of you having transferred entries from a separate QIF file into MYOB on 6 and 7 March 2020, aren't they? A. No, they're not. And as the chain of custody says, and it comes d irectly from Ontier, those files never touched me. I didn't have a log- in, I didn't download the file, I was never involved. It was directly by paralegals at Ontier. Dr Wright evades a question, instead using the opportunity to further blame third Parties. {L5/150/1} 11- 08-2009 Information Defense Pty Ltd - Bitcoin Token {L5/471/1} 01- 10-2009 Information Defense Pty Ltd - Bitcoin Token {L5/146/1} BCDB - Bitcoin inventory {Day3/127:22} - {Day3/128:9} Q. Now, just to be clear, the findings of Mr Madden, agreed by Dr Placks, were that the entries shown on these documents which we have just seen were as a result of your entries on 6 and 7 March 2020. You dispute that, do you? Dr Wright claims the MYOB screenshots relate to a 2009 account despite providing no evidence for this. Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 59 REFERENCE QUOTE COMMENT A. I do, because both of these -- or all of those images were taken by Ont ier prior to that date, so that can't be true. Q. The reality is that these documents resulted from entries which you made in the system in March 2020 and that they're matters of your invention, aren't they? A. No, they're not. They're from an account that I no longer have admin access to that dates back to 2009. {H/209/11} Appendix PM42 (New MYOB Files) {Day3/134:5- 17} Q. Page 16, please {H/209/16}, pa ragraph 51. What Mr Madden then did was to view the session logs in an SQL compact viewer, a tool which shows records in the order that they were added, and he finds log- in and log out records for the session ID which had given the anomalous records, now w ith the log -in and log out records directly with each other but the timestamps out of order; correct? A. No. As I've noted before, the schema updates. This was part of what I put in my witness statement pointing to an MYOB site. The schema in MYOB will upd ate entries and any of these log entries will record when they have been updated. Dr Wright refuses to accept an obvious fact., and avoids a question about logs by answering with a reply about schemas. {Day3/135:10} - {Day3/136:3}

Trial document files for the COPA v Wright case. The claimant is CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE (COPA). The defendant is DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (Craig Wright). ### File name: part 23 of 220 Appendix B to COPA's Closing Submissions - Schedule of Transcript References.pdf ### Folder name: Closings ### File path: /content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Skeletons/Closings/Appendix B to COPA's Closing Submissions - Schedule of Transcript References.pdf ### File content: Q. You had every opportunity in that part of the chain of custody schedule to provide further information if you wanted to, didn't you? A. Yes , I did. Dr Wright admits he had an opportunity to set out in his Chain of Custody the fact that documents were different in some way, but did not take it. {CSW/2/71} CSW 11 Appendix B {Day3/122:18} - {Day3/123:6} Q. What you’re saying is that in order to provide documents for, first of all, the Kleiman litigation and then for these proceedings, you laboriously took entries from a live version of MYOB and entered them in one by one into a non -live version of MYOB and then produced some versions of that? A. No, in multiple ways. Firstly, these were never used in this proceedings. The reason you’re saying your needle in a haystack is that you had people go through every single email I have ever sent and looked for them. That was then part of the litig ation in that case. Next, the log- in for the live version of MYOB was provided to Ontier and AlixPartners in 2019. 2019 precedes this. Dr Wright evades the question about the creation of the MYOB records, providing a confusing reply. {Day3/123:14} - {Day3/124:2} Q. But Dr Wright, what you didn’t explain there was that your part in all of this, in creating these documents, by putting in these entries in March 2020, that wasn’t apparent from the chain of custody, was it? A. No, because I didn’t do that. Your error is you keep missing the fact that I said I had to create another document. My Lord, the litigation in the US didn’t involve Tulip Trading. If I was to bring that in, it would add extra opportunity for Mr Kleiman to seek money from me. So, what I did was separate it. I requested an offline copy so that I could make it so that no online copy of anything from Tulip Trading would go into the American case. Dr Wright claims the MYOB screenshots had to be created new for Kleiman. Dr Wright has provided no evidence that this assertion is correct. Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 58 REFERENCE QUOTE COMMENT {Day3/124:19} - {Day3/125:10} Q. Do you say that none of those screenshots that we looked at, 4077, 4078, 4079 or 4090, has anything to do with this case? A. I’m saying that the screenshots taken by Ontier had nothing to do with that file. That file was never given to Ontier, so therefore Ontier could not have, at any point, got screenshots from the file. Q. Well, you said a moment ago that none of these documents had anything to do with this case. That's what you said. A. No, as in the QIF -- sorry, the QIF, the MYOB and the email. Sorry, I'm not specific. Q. The documents that we looked at earlier, 4077, 4078, 4079, that I put on screen, are they documents you say have nothing to do with this case? A. They are documents related to this case that have nothing to do with the other MYOB file. Dr Wright gives muddled answers to evade answering the question. {Day3/125:11} - {Day3/126:6} Q. I'm sorry, Dr Wright, do you say that those documents have relevance to this case and are probative of anything in this case? A. As I just said, they're documents related to this case -- I'll emphasise that again. The screenshots taken by Ontier, when they downloaded, themselves, the online version of this document that has nothin g to do with the one gave in to the American court case, are directly related to this case. The ones that I created in response to Magistrate Reinhart and an order to do so, they, on the other hand, have nothing to do with this case. Q. The documents you s ay that do have something to do with this case, were created by you -- as a result of you having transferred entries from a separate QIF file into MYOB on 6 and 7 March 2020, aren't they? A. No, they're not. And as the chain of custody says, and it comes d irectly from Ontier, those files never touched me. I didn't have a log- in, I didn't download the file, I was never involved. It was directly by paralegals at Ontier. Dr Wright evades a question, instead using the opportunity to further blame third Parties. {L5/150/1} 11- 08-2009 Information Defense Pty Ltd - Bitcoin Token {L5/471/1} 01- 10-2009 Information Defense Pty Ltd - Bitcoin Token {L5/146/1} BCDB - Bitcoin inventory {Day3/127:22} - {Day3/128:9} Q. Now, just to be clear, the findings of Mr Madden, agreed by Dr Placks, were that the entries shown on these documents which we have just seen were as a result of your entries on 6 and 7 March 2020. You dispute that, do you? Dr Wright claims the MYOB screenshots relate to a 2009 account despite providing no evidence for this. Appendix B: Schedule of Transcript References 59 REFERENCE QUOTE COMMENT A. I do, because both of these -- or all of those images were taken by Ont ier prior to that date, so that can't be true. Q. The reality is that these documents resulted from entries which you made in the system in March 2020 and that they're matters of your invention, aren't they? A. No, they're not. They're from an account that I no longer have admin access to that dates back to 2009. {H/209/11} Appendix PM42 (New MYOB Files) {Day3/134:5- 17} Q. Page 16, please {H/209/16}, pa ragraph 51. What Mr Madden then did was to view the session logs in an SQL compact viewer, a tool which shows records in the order that they were added, and he finds log- in and log out records for the session ID which had given the anomalous records, now w ith the log -in and log out records directly with each other but the timestamps out of order; correct? A. No. As I've noted before, the schema updates. This was part of what I put in my witness statement pointing to an MYOB site. The schema in MYOB will upd ate entries and any of these log entries will record when they have been updated. Dr Wright refuses to accept an obvious fact., and avoids a question about logs by answering with a reply about schemas. {Day3/135:10} - {Day3/136:3}

/content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Skeletons/Closings/COPA's Closing Submissions.pdf

Closings

part 4 of 82 COPA's Closing Submissions.pdf

7 See {Day5/180:2} – intervention by Lord Grabiner KC. 10 20. It is COPA’s case that Dr Wright produced these forgeries himself or alternatively (if others were somehow involved) he at least knew that he was presenting false evidence. Furthermore, Dr Wright’s forg eries and lies are not merely historic. This is not a case of some past forgeries being exposed, but a scheme of forgery and lies continually adapting and re -inventing itself (most recently with the BDO Drive in September 2023 and the Overleaf LaTeX files in November / December 2023). Once one aspect of Dr Wright’s story is discredited, he supplements it with yet further forgeries, moves his story in a different direction and casts blame on others (often casting lawyers and experts as his scapegoats, to t ake advantage of legal professional privilege). 21. In this skeleton, COPA presents its case in three parts: 21.1. Use of false and forged documents : Dr Wright has produced a large number of false and forged documents, manipulated in such a way as to give support to many aspects of his story. The forged documents are of numerous kinds, and they demonstrate a wide range of techniques of forgery. In a ccordance with orders of the Court, COPA has (a) pleaded 50 forgeries from Dr Wright’s original disclosure, while agreeing to focus upon 20 of those; and (b) pleaded a further 20 forgeries from the “new” documents which Dr Wright supposedly found between September and November 2023. 21.2. Failures of proof : Despite having the strongest incentives to do so, Dr Wright has failed to supply evidence which might actually support his claim to be Satoshi, such as by producing verifiable emails or draft documents from 2007- 2009 or by offering reliable cryptographic proof of his control of Bitcoin addresses linked to blocks associated with Satoshi. Indeed, not only has Dr Wright not taken such steps, he has on key occasions undertaken to do so and then fa iled to come good on his promise. Two examples are (a) his signal failure to undertake a public key signing or transaction in May 2016 and (b) his empty boast that he could prove purchase of Satoshi’s email account and web domain. 21.3. Inconsistent and implaus ible account : Dr Wright’s account is full of inconsistent and implausible features. The inconsistencies are both internal (in the sense that Dr Wright’s own story has changed) and external (where Dr Wright’s story 11 conflicts with reliable evidence or estab lished fact). Furthermore, certain aspects of Dr Wright’s story are simply so incredible they cannot be believed. The Factual Background 22. The Court is aware of the background to these proceedings. The following is a summary which provides context to the i ssues for trial. A word of caution: because COPA’s position is that Dr Wright is lying about all aspects of his claim to be Satoshi, any reference to his version of events should not be read as COPA accepting it. 23. COPA now adds to the below further matters which have emerged or been confirmed during the evidence at trial. Digital Cash before Bitcoin 24. Concepts of digital cash date back to the early 1980s, when an American cryptographer called David Chaum proposed a form of token currency which could be transf erred safely between individuals, supported by encryption tools. In the 1990s, several further electronic currency systems were proposed, including E -Gold (Dr Jackson and Mr Downey); Bit Gold (Nick Szabo); B -Money (Wei Dai); and Hashcash (Adam Back). Hashcash used a proof -of-work algorithm, as many modern cryptocurrencies do. The expression “ block chaining” in the context of cryptographic cyphers dates back to the 1970s, 8 while public discussion of Hashcash in the late 1990s used the expression “ block chain” in the context of data structures.9 Satoshi’s Release of Bitcoin Satoshi’s initial communications and release of the Bitcoin White Paper 25. Bitcoin is based on concepts first set out in the Bitcoin White Paper (“ the White Paper”), the full title of w hich was: “Bitcoin: A Peer -to-Peer Electronic Cash System”. It was written by Satoshi Nakamoto, which is agreed to be a pseudonym. In late August 2008, Satoshi contacted Dr Back by email, referring him to a draft of the White Paper hosted 8 See US Patent 4074066, 1976: “ Message verification and transmission error detection by block chaining” (Ehrsam et al.). 9 See for example: http://mailing -list- archive.cryptoanarchy.wiki/archive/1997/12/e080a2180e912b9b129e8be3e4d114421b0c9bc11217ac2e40b3b8f1 12305572 12 on the “upload.ae” site and asking to check a reference to his paper on Hashcash.10 Dr Back replied, informing Satoshi about Wei Dai’s B -Money Paper.11 Satoshi then wrote to Wei Dai to check the reference for that paper.12 These early emails contain abstracts of the draft paper. It should be noted that the Satoshi / Wei Dai emails were published before these proceedings, while the Satoshi / Adam Back emails were not. 26. On 31 October 2008, Satoshi released the White Paper by sending an email to the “metzdowd cryptography mailing list” (“ the Metzdowd List ”) (a group of individuals interested in cryptography) and directing them to a link on the “bitcoin.org” site, where the document was hosted. 13 From around 9 November 2008, the White Paper was also hosted on a document repository, SourceForge. The final version of the White Paper was posted on SourceForge.net on 24 March 2009,14 and published under the MIT License.15 27. The White Paper describes a system for electronic payments, whereby transactions may be made between participants without a central trusted intermediary. It uses cryptographic signatures and addresses the risk of double -spending by transactions being recorded in blocks, validated by proof -of-work. It is further described in the section of this skeleton headed “Overview of Cryptocurrency Technology”. 28. A number of email addresses have been associated with Satoshi. These have included: [email protected]; [email protected] ; and [email protected] . The last of those three was used in the emails to A dam Back and Wei Dai of late August 2008, while the first was used to post the White Paper in October 2008. 29. Over the period from 31 October 2008 to January 2009, Satoshi wrote a series of emails to the Metzdowd List. In one, dated 8 November 2008, Satoshi explained that the code had been written before the White Paper. 16 In another, dated 14 November 2008, Satoshi claimed to be “better with code than with words ”. In a third, dated 17 November 2008, Satoshi wrote of having worked through various “ little d etails over the last year and a 10 See email of 20 August

Trial document files for the COPA v Wright case. The claimant is CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE (COPA). The defendant is DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (Craig Wright). ### File name: part 4 of 82 COPA's Closing Submissions.pdf ### Folder name: Closings ### File path: /content/Copa v Wright - Trial Documents/Skeletons/Closings/COPA's Closing Submissions.pdf ### File content: 7 See {Day5/180:2} – intervention by Lord Grabiner KC. 10 20. It is COPA’s case that Dr Wright produced these forgeries himself or alternatively (if others were somehow involved) he at least knew that he was presenting false evidence. Furthermore, Dr Wright’s forg eries and lies are not merely historic. This is not a case of some past forgeries being exposed, but a scheme of forgery and lies continually adapting and re -inventing itself (most recently with the BDO Drive in September 2023 and the Overleaf LaTeX files in November / December 2023). Once one aspect of Dr Wright’s story is discredited, he supplements it with yet further forgeries, moves his story in a different direction and casts blame on others (often casting lawyers and experts as his scapegoats, to t ake advantage of legal professional privilege). 21. In this skeleton, COPA presents its case in three parts: 21.1. Use of false and forged documents : Dr Wright has produced a large number of false and forged documents, manipulated in such a way as to give support to many aspects of his story. The forged documents are of numerous kinds, and they demonstrate a wide range of techniques of forgery. In a ccordance with orders of the Court, COPA has (a) pleaded 50 forgeries from Dr Wright’s original disclosure, while agreeing to focus upon 20 of those; and (b) pleaded a further 20 forgeries from the “new” documents which Dr Wright supposedly found between September and November 2023. 21.2. Failures of proof : Despite having the strongest incentives to do so, Dr Wright has failed to supply evidence which might actually support his claim to be Satoshi, such as by producing verifiable emails or draft documents from 2007- 2009 or by offering reliable cryptographic proof of his control of Bitcoin addresses linked to blocks associated with Satoshi. Indeed, not only has Dr Wright not taken such steps, he has on key occasions undertaken to do so and then fa iled to come good on his promise. Two examples are (a) his signal failure to undertake a public key signing or transaction in May 2016 and (b) his empty boast that he could prove purchase of Satoshi’s email account and web domain. 21.3. Inconsistent and implaus ible account : Dr Wright’s account is full of inconsistent and implausible features. The inconsistencies are both internal (in the sense that Dr Wright’s own story has changed) and external (where Dr Wright’s story 11 conflicts with reliable evidence or estab lished fact). Furthermore, certain aspects of Dr Wright’s story are simply so incredible they cannot be believed. The Factual Background 22. The Court is aware of the background to these proceedings. The following is a summary which provides context to the i ssues for trial. A word of caution: because COPA’s position is that Dr Wright is lying about all aspects of his claim to be Satoshi, any reference to his version of events should not be read as COPA accepting it. 23. COPA now adds to the below further matters which have emerged or been confirmed during the evidence at trial. Digital Cash before Bitcoin 24. Concepts of digital cash date back to the early 1980s, when an American cryptographer called David Chaum proposed a form of token currency which could be transf erred safely between individuals, supported by encryption tools. In the 1990s, several further electronic currency systems were proposed, including E -Gold (Dr Jackson and Mr Downey); Bit Gold (Nick Szabo); B -Money (Wei Dai); and Hashcash (Adam Back). Hashcash used a proof -of-work algorithm, as many modern cryptocurrencies do. The expression “ block chaining” in the context of cryptographic cyphers dates back to the 1970s, 8 while public discussion of Hashcash in the late 1990s used the expression “ block chain” in the context of data structures.9 Satoshi’s Release of Bitcoin Satoshi’s initial communications and release of the Bitcoin White Paper 25. Bitcoin is based on concepts first set out in the Bitcoin White Paper (“ the White Paper”), the full title of w hich was: “Bitcoin: A Peer -to-Peer Electronic Cash System”. It was written by Satoshi Nakamoto, which is agreed to be a pseudonym. In late August 2008, Satoshi contacted Dr Back by email, referring him to a draft of the White Paper hosted 8 See US Patent 4074066, 1976: “ Message verification and transmission error detection by block chaining” (Ehrsam et al.). 9 See for example: http://mailing -list- archive.cryptoanarchy.wiki/archive/1997/12/e080a2180e912b9b129e8be3e4d114421b0c9bc11217ac2e40b3b8f1 12305572 12 on the “upload.ae” site and asking to check a reference to his paper on Hashcash.10 Dr Back replied, informing Satoshi about Wei Dai’s B -Money Paper.11 Satoshi then wrote to Wei Dai to check the reference for that paper.12 These early emails contain abstracts of the draft paper. It should be noted that the Satoshi / Wei Dai emails were published before these proceedings, while the Satoshi / Adam Back emails were not. 26. On 31 October 2008, Satoshi released the White Paper by sending an email to the “metzdowd cryptography mailing list” (“ the Metzdowd List ”) (a group of individuals interested in cryptography) and directing them to a link on the “bitcoin.org” site, where the document was hosted. 13 From around 9 November 2008, the White Paper was also hosted on a document repository, SourceForge. The final version of the White Paper was posted on SourceForge.net on 24 March 2009,14 and published under the MIT License.15 27. The White Paper describes a system for electronic payments, whereby transactions may be made between participants without a central trusted intermediary. It uses cryptographic signatures and addresses the risk of double -spending by transactions being recorded in blocks, validated by proof -of-work. It is further described in the section of this skeleton headed “Overview of Cryptocurrency Technology”. 28. A number of email addresses have been associated with Satoshi. These have included: [email protected]; [email protected] ; and [email protected] . The last of those three was used in the emails to A dam Back and Wei Dai of late August 2008, while the first was used to post the White Paper in October 2008. 29. Over the period from 31 October 2008 to January 2009, Satoshi wrote a series of emails to the Metzdowd List. In one, dated 8 November 2008, Satoshi explained that the code had been written before the White Paper. 16 In another, dated 14 November 2008, Satoshi claimed to be “better with code than with words ”. In a third, dated 17 November 2008, Satoshi wrote of having worked through various “ little d etails over the last year and a 10 See email of 20 August