COPA Challenges Craig Wright's Claims with Evidence of Document Manipulation

31. “Economic Security.doc” (Reliance Document) {ID_000258} / {L3/286/1}

597. The document purports to be work associated with the development of Bitcoin. It refers to “BitCoin” in the future tense and is dated 5 to 7 November 2008.

(a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery

598. The document has been backdated, with signs of apparently contradictory metadata. [PM29 [17-18]].

599. The document is an altered version of a document actually published by Dr Wright in May 2019 (the “Economic Security Medium Article”). [PM29 [10-15]].

600. From the Economic Security Medium Article to ID_00258, the tense has been changed from past to future, to give the document the appearance of predating Bitcoin, contrary to fact. [PM29 [14-15]].

601. From the Economic Security Medium Article to {ID_000258}, the capitalisation of Bitcoin has been adapted to “BitCoin” (which would more closely align to Dr Wright’s account of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto and his use of terminology). [PM29 [15]].

602. The document contains hidden embedded text of previous edits. The hidden embedded text is adapted from the Economic Security Medium Article, and text sections are phrased in the present tense (as is the Economic Security Medium Article). The hidden embedded text does not appear on the face of the document. [PM29 [15]].

603. The Economic Security Medium Article has not been disclosed by Dr Wright. Further, no corresponding draft document or donor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM29 [16]].

604. The internal metadata records an anomalous edit time in excess of 57 days, despite a very short period between file created and last modified date, indicative of the use of clock manipulation techniques (1 day 19hrs 14 mins). [PM29 [5]].

605. The period of editing this document overlaps with a number of other documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure. [PM24 [33-35]].

606. The document was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. The email contains several manipulated documents purported to be in the custody of Lynn Wright. The metadata of that zip file is also irregular. [{ID_003934}, PM29 [2]; PM26, [25-38]].

(b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

607. Dr Wright has positively asserted that {ID_000258} is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

608. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done privately by him and looking ahead to Bitcoin), contrary to fact.

609. The document is written in the first person from the perspective of Dr Wright.

610. Dr Wright is listed as the original author in the internal metadata of the file.

611. The Economic Security Medium Article was posted by Dr Wright on his own account on the website Medium.com.

612. Although the document metadata present Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright, and a copy sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email long after they were separated, contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright relies. The metadata of that zip file itself are also irregular. [{ID_003934}, PM29 [2], PM26 [25-38]].

613. Dr Wright shared a document with identical content on social media on 16 January 2020, contemporaneously with the aforesaid email to Lynn Wright. Upon request in these proceedings, Dr Wright has repeatedly declined to disclose a copy of his posts to social media accounts. Since the date of the request, Dr Wright has claimed to have lost access to the relevant social media account.

614. In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence.

615. Dr Wright has not disclosed associated relevant documents.

(c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal

616. In Wright11, Appendix B, Dr Wright sought to explain away the presence of the other version of the document in its redundant space by saying that his former wife (Lynn Wright) edited the document and “would have taken out my rants”. He tried to explain the fact that the version in the redundant space spoke of Bitcoin as a system already in operation, while the face text of the document spoke of it as a system yet to take effect, by saying that there were debates about the operation of the system even before it came into effect: {CSW/2/30}, at [8.6 to 8.7]. He sought to explain away the fact that the remnant text matched parts of his 2019 article by saying that that article was not a final product: {CSW/2/31, [8.8]}.

617. In oral evidence, when pressed on the fact that the remnant text was plainly written after Bitcoin had come into operation as a system, Dr Wright changed his story again, claiming that the document was or may have been subject to editing not only by Lynn Wright but also by one or more unidentified members of staff: {Day3/29:22} to {Day3/30:14}.

618. Then Dr Wright sought to explain away the deleted, hidden/embedded references in this document (from 2008) to contemporaneous attacks on Bitcoin by his assertion that Bitcoin was being criticised even before it became operational in 2009 (Day3/31/3 to Day3/32/5}.

619. Dr Wright sought to explain away the fact that the edit time was far longer than the period between the created and last saved dates by claiming that it resulted from a combination of the use of Citrix and copying of documents using the X-copy command: {Day3/26:8- 11}.

620. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons:

620.1. Dr Wright’s account is that (i) in 2008, before the Bitcoin code had even been released, he wrote a bizarre document which referred to and described Bitcoin as a system already in operation (as reflected by the remnant text); (ii) his wife and possibly some employees edited the document one or more times to produce a version which spoke of Bitcoin as a system yet to take effect (as reflected by the face value text); and (iii) 11 years later, in 2019, he modified the text again to bring it closer to the original and issued the resulting text as the Medium article. This is wildly implausible.

620.2. Dr Wright’s account of his wife removing “rants” from the document is plainly wrong. If one compares the face text, redundant draft and Medium article text (as shown against each other in Exhibit PM29.2 {H/1281/}), it can be seen that the changes were not to remove “rants” but to change the document from speaking about Bitcoin in the present tense to speaking of it in the future tense.

620.3. For Dr Wright’s account, Lynn Wright would need to have been very familiar with his Bitcoin project. However, she told the Court in the Kleiman proceedings that Dr Wright had never mentioned Bitcoin to her: see {L16/116/74}. Dr Wright sought to answer this point by saying that she had been giving evidence while medically unfit, and he even claimed that she had not been asked about her medical fitness {Day2/97:15} to {Day2/98:4}. However, that was false: at the start of her deposition evidence in the Kleiman proceedings, Lynn Wright was asked about her medical fitness and said that she was fit to give evidence: {L16/116/8}.

620.4. Dr Wright’s account also relies upon his explanation of the editing time anomaly, which is at odds with the only independent expert evidence. It should be stressed that the anomaly in this instance is not merely a long edit time (which might be explained by a Citrix session being left open) but an edit time longer than the difference between created and last saved times, which on the expert evidence is only explained by backdating: PM29 [7] {H/126/4}.

620.5. As for the explanation that Bitcoin was being criticised even before the system was launched in 2009, no documents were identified to support this argument. Furthermore, it is an explanation which is wholly unconvincing in the light of Mr Madden’s detailed analysis.

(d) Conclusion

621. Once again, I found Mr Madden’s analysis to be wholly convincing and Dr Wright’s explanations to be utterly unconvincing.